Loading...
19780418 City Council MinutesApril 11, 1978 - continued apprgve.d. Matching funds were required from the City and, although those funds were not so budgeted, the Council had gone on record as favoring the application with the indication that matching funds MOTION: would be provided. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE, AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR BE INSTRUCTED TO DESIGNATE A FUND FROM WHICH TO BORROW $9,500, FOR ONE YEAR, AT 5% INTEREST, TO PROVIDE MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE MUSEUM GRANT. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Harrison read a statement in response to a challenge from the Police Department regarding the physical fitness test recommended for police officers and fire fighters. Mayor Harrison had commented that he could pass it, and was challenged to do so. He said he would take the test on Wednesday, April 26, at noon, at the Junior High School playfield across from the Civic Center, and he offered an invitation to anyone who wished to join him. DISCUSSION ON PUBLICATION OF AGENDAS City Clerk Irene Varney Moran had provided information regarding publication in the Western Sun similar to that which is done for the Everett City Council, including costs. Suggestions made were that the picture of the Mayor and Council be omitted, except perhaps once a month; that the names of the Mayor and the Council members be included; and that extraneous ma:ter:fa=l�s.udhas file numbers be omitted.. It was also suggested that a statement be included soliciting audience participation regarding matters not on the agenda. Councilman Carns did.not favor publication in the Western Sun because he said it reached only about 1,000 residences in the City of Edmonds when there are about 8,000 residences in the City. He felt this was too expensive a proposal for reaching so few residences. He felt the major issues discussed are well covered in the Western Sun, Enterprise,:zand Tribune Review, and that the communication problem was not great. Councilman Clement suggested a bulk mailing might reach more citizens at less cost than publication in the newspaper. Further discussion indicated most of the Council members approved of the concept and.it MOTION: was recommended that it be left to the Staff to develop the notice. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE STAFF -BE ADVISED TO PROCEED ON THE CONCEPT PRESENTED, •• AND THAT A FORMAT BE PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL F,O�R APPROVAL AT THE APRIL 25 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. REVIEW SUBMISSION OF 201 FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND ALTERNATE PROPOSALS 1 • 1 1 The Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations portion of the Reid -Middleton -report had been provided for review. Community Development Director John LaTourelle stated that if the EPA accepts the recommendations of the report they will fund a formal environmental impact statement. Council- man Gould noted that the implementation section. calls for holding public hearings in each area. Allen deSteiguer of Reid, Middleton & Associates indicated one hearing would be held in each political area and that the State had requested an opportunity to review the report before the public hearings are held. Further, he said the way the plan was presented it basically said that the alternative. that expands the present plant appears to be the most cost effective at this point. Councilman Gould said the Council should be advised by the Staff when the comments come in from the DOE and EPA, and then they could look at the schedule.for public hearings. Councilman Nordquist said he had discussed the report with Public Works Director Leif Larson and that one of the problems is that one of the sites being considered involves expansion through acquisition of property. He said the existing site has two tracts adjacent to it -which. would be needed to carry out the project and it was his understanding that over the last year of so the adjacent property owners had been considering selling and had contacted Mr.`�Larson. Mr. Larson had indicated that they cannot continue to tell these people that a decision will be made and.then put it off. Councilman Nordquist noted also that if Public Works had to be expanded that.property might be used for such expansion. There was no action taken on this item. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON P.C. RESOLUTION 584, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE TO ALLOW JOINT RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS USE OF BUILKINGS IN BN, BC, AND'CW ZONES (FILE ZO-8-77) (REVIEW ORDINANCE 1984, PASSED MARCH 21) Community Development Director John LaTourelle recommended that this matter be remanded to the Planning Commission for further review. Several problems had arisen since its passage which appeared MOTION: to need further Planning Commission study. Mr. LaTourelle briefly discussed them. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT P.C. RESOLUTION 584 (ORDINANCE 1985) BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND•RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PENTHOUSES, BUILDING HEIGHT, ALLOWABLE UNITS, SETBACKS, PARKING, LOT.COVERAGE, AND DENSITY, AND THAT THEIR FINDINGS BE RETURNED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. ::Councilman Carns inquired of the City Attorney whether applications for building permits already in process under Ordinance 1985 would proceed, and he replied that they would, that the ordinance became effective five days after passage and posting. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, CYTY CLERK Apr.i;l v18, 1978 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called -to order at 7:45 p.m. by Mayor Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT n LJ Harve Harrison, Mayor Phil Clement Charles Dibble, M.A.A. 2 1-2 April 18 1978 - continued MOTION: Mike Herb Larry Naughten Katherine Allen John Nordquist Ray Gould Tom Carns CONSENT AGENDA John LaTourelle, Community Dev. Dir. Art Housler, Finance Director Leif Larson, Director Public Works Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk John Wallace, City Attorney Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jo Ann Fischer, Recording Secy. Mayor's Administrative Assistant Charles Dibble requested the removal of Item (D), proposed reso- lution re Interfund loan for management training seminar, from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The Consent Agenda contained the following: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of April 11, 1978. (C) Adoption of Ordinance 1988 Amending Ordinance 1964 (1978 Budget) authorizing an increase in .revenuesi ia6d;appropriati!ons,:of�.the,.General Fund,�001 'iEederalq iShared` Home, Safety Fudd 195, and-,Ahe.:Capi'taJ' Improvements Fund 325. (E) Adoption of Resolution 396 authorizing Interfund loan for the purpose of providing matching monies for the Andrew Carnegie -Library (Museum) renovation. (F) Adoption of Resolution 397 transferring funds from Contingency Fund to the General Fund for Underwater Park improvements and for additional copies of Elementary School Study. (G) Acknowledgement of receipt of claim for,'damages (Country Boutique of South County Senior Center). COUNCIL Councilman Carns referred to the revenue analysis report received from Finance Director Art Housler. Mr. Carns noted that we collected $92,176.54 in sales tax revenue which is only 2213% of what we had budgeted for. He asked whether receipts are generally lower in the first quarter than they are in the other three quarters and whether there might be cause to have to reflect on the $416,000,000 which we had budgeted for and which might be too high. Mr. Housler stated he did not think there was cause for concern as, basically, our revenues are pretty much in line with what they were last year. Last year we were at 15.7% at this time and this year we are at 15.9%. He stated that this is'total revenues in general and basically applies throughout each individual revenue. In answer to Councilman Carns' question as to whether there is cause for concern, Mr. Housler stated that the Finance Department has taken a close look at this; however there is no concern as it is too early in the year to tell. He stated that by the end of this month we will have our property taxes and will be able to make much better projections. .He stated that based on last year's revenue and the draft which has been prepared, there is just a slight difference of 1%. Councilman Carns stated that last Thursday's Council/Staff luncheon had been called off due to the fact that many of the Council members could not participate. He suggested that this item be brought up for discussion at the workshop to be held at Port Ludlow this weekend. Councilman Carns referred to the letter received from Mr. Jens Brautaset wherein he reports of the intolerable situation he and his family are facing as a result of a neighbor building a fiber- glass boat. Councilman Carns asked City Attorney John Wallace what action could be taken regarding this matter. Mr. Wallace stated that under the City Code the only provision which would be applicable would be those relating to "private nuisance". He stated that if it is a situation which involves anything injurious to the public health, we are in.a situation where it can be re- gulated and prohibited. The course of action would be to refer this situation to the City Health Officer which is Snohomish County Health District. They would have to coordinate very closely with the complaining neighbor so as to arrange a visit to the house in order to witness the situation firsthand. Upon doing so, the necessary legal steps can be taken. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN TO REQUEST THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO SEND A LETTER TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH BOARD INFORMING THEM OF THIS SITUATION AND ASKING THEM FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE IN THIS MATTER. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Harrison expressed an opinion that it might be advisable for. the City Council to strengthen the City ordinances by setting limits on odor, dust and noise so that these situations which arise can be taken care of within City jurisdiction. Councilman Gould stated that there are already State statutes regarding noise and nuisances of this nature which they would undoubtedly have to meet. Councilman Herb stated that this is a matter of a very technical nature and would be quite an elaborate undertaking if the City were to try to speculate on all of the different types of fumes and noises which might be possible. He felt the best course of action was to submit the problem to the County Health Board. Mayor Harrison thought that perhaps a restriction should be placed on boat`building requiring a certain setback between properties for.boat building. This would require the person building the boat to stay a certain distance from the property line of neighbors and would go a long ways toward eliminating problems of this nature. Councilman Gould was of the opinion that the manufacturer had to meet all of the WISHA regulations regarding dust, noise and the like in boat building. John Wallace stated that he did not know whether the WISHA regulations would apply in situations where it is a home hobby type of venture. Councilwoman Allen questioned what course of action would be taken after the matter had been referred to the Snohomish County Health Board. John Wallace stated that if this is indeed injurious to public health, we will then take action to abate it. It may be classified as a "private nuisance" in which case the complaining party has a due cause of action. If it is injurious to the public health, however, the City will then step in. • 1 0 1 • 1 1 0 April 18, 1978 - continued 2.1 31 • Mr. Jens Brautaset of 1037 6th Avenue South who is the complainant in this case brought forth further information regarding the adverse effects of the fumes upon his son's health. He turned this information over to City Attorney John Wallace. Mr. Wallace stated that information in the letter to the Snohomish County Health Board should contain Mr. Brautaset's home address and telephone number so that the Board could contact him on this matter. MAYOR Mayor Harrison called attention to the Quarterly -Meeting of the Association of Snohomish County Cities and.Towns which is to be.held April 27, 1978 at 7:15 p.m. at the Everett Yacht Club. The agenda is the election of a representative to the Snohomish County Disability Board, the election of Association officers for 19.78 and a -"Buffet of Municipal Matters". The Mayor asked the members of the Council whether they planned to attend. The other Council members were not definite about their plans at this time. AUDIENCE Mr. John Olsen of Reid, Middleton & Associates stated that he wanted .to go on record as having wit- nessed the intolerable situation which Mr. Brautaset has been having to contend with. He stated that the resinous dust and noxious fumes emitted by the chemicals used in this fiberglass boat building project present an intolerable situation for the Brautasets. He felt that the City should definitely have more say in this matter. Councilman Herb stated that this sounded as though it could be a very serious civil suit. In Councilman Herb's opinion, the defendant should have an opportunity to come forward at the same time as the complainant if the City Council is to review this matter. If the matter is one which indeed involves more than one family or is considered injurious to the public health in general, then the City should definitely take a firm stand. HEARING ON PRELIMINARY. ASSESSMENT ROLE - SEWER LID, THIRD AVE. SO., PINE TO ELM • Director of Public Works Leif Larson gave a'brief history of this project and indicated the boundaries of the L.I.D. Cost estimates were presented as well as an explanation of the zone termini methods. He stated that this project began about ten years ago and it didn't pass because at that time they were proposing Route #104 to go across Third Avenue. This property had been assessed because the State had not condemned it. The Council decided not to proceed with this until after Route #104 was put in. Over the years there have been some connections which have been made to Second Avenue. Mr. Larson pointed out the L.I.D. boundaries. He stated that the L.I.D. had been prepared on the basis of including all costs in connection with this, including the cost of the dry sewers which were in- stalled some years ago. There are two proposals with regard to cost estimates. He stated that the property owners involved in this improvement had received assessments based on the entire costs. The other alternative is that the City would participate in this project based upon zone front footage for the Overpass area and the properties.allowed to connect westerly to Second Avenue. The cost estimate for construction is $21,590,00 and there is $8,872.50 which has already been spent for putting sewers in around Route #104. The total cost which is all-inclusive is $33,817,50. Based upon that, the zone front footage cost is $27.57. He -stated that it would be more equitable if the city were to participate in the amount of $13,949.66 as this would revise the property owners' assessments based on a $15.81 per zone front foot rate. Mr. Larson recommended that the City proceed with this project and that the City participate in the amount of $13,949.66 with the property owners' pre- liminary assessments being revised based on $15.81 per zone front foot. Mr. Larson further ex- plained what is termed the zone termini method of assessment in which the first 30' strip of prop- erty is assessed at 45% of the cost, the next 30' at 25% of the cost, and the next 30' at 20% of the cost. The zone termini method is that which is prescribed in the R.C.W. which is the State Code. Councilman Naughten asked fora definition of a "dry sewer". Mr. Larson said that a dry sewer is one that has been installed but has not been connected. He stated that this has already been done and is included in the $8,872.50 cost. Mr. Larson requested John Wallace to indicate the rights of the propery owners in this instance re- garding whether or not they can protest and the ways and means to finance this assessment. Mr. Wallace • stated that the Council tonight is faced with whether or not to form a Local Improvement District at the conclusion of this hearing. If the Council decides to.form the District and pass the ordinance, the property owners have a_period of 30 days.from the date of passage of the ordinance within which they may file their written protests with the City Clerk. It takes the owners of property that are bearing 60% of the total cost of the improvement to protest out an L.I.D. In other words, persons owning more property have more votes in essence because it is based upon the owners of property that are paying 60% or more of the assessment. The right of protest can be eliminated by the City Council if it finds in conjunction with the report from the Health Officer that there is a need for the sanitary sewers. The ordinance which is proposed does not have the health clause in it. Mr. Wallace went on to explain that after the 30 days have expired and if it is not protested out, we then proceed to go to bid for construction of the project. The project then goes into construction, completion and acceptance and then we have the final assessment role hearing. At that time a notice will be sent to all of the people that are included within the L.I.D. area which will set forth the amount of the final assessment. There is another hearing at which time the City Council sits as a Board of Equalization where they will hear all of the protests with respect to the extent, nature and amount of the assessments. At the conclusion of hearing they will either modify the ,that assessments..if they find that should be done; or they may raise them, lower them, or confirm the assessment.role as it has been proposed. At the point in time that they confirm the. assessment role, any property owner.has a thirty day period in which to pay all or any portion of their proposed assessment without having to pay any interest -on those -charges. At the expiration of that thirty days (which is the end of the "cash prepayment period") bonds will be issued for the remaining balance of the assessments that.are unpaid and all of the property owners then will pay ten equal. annual installment being due one year later., The -:in erest.:_ra.te in .the;past. has: usually ranged from 6 1/4 -to 6 3/4%. The,. •r.:i ngr.was opened., Mr. Carl Reinholt of 1142 3rd Ave. So. asked whether he could be quaranteed a flow on -the west side of 3rd Avenue. Mr. Larson stated that when we make the sewers, we check.placement elevations during the detailed engineering design of the sewer. One of the objectives in doing this is to be sure that we get the sewer placed so that it will best -serve the property. If we find that it is not feasible to serve that particular -piece of property, we would recommend in the final assessment the r1 U 2-1 4 April 18, 1978 =:continued reduction of that piece of property from the L.I.D. Mayor Harrison asked if it wouldn"t beafeasible • in this situation where the City might obtain an easement down to the Second Avenue sewer and provide him that easement. Mr. Larson said this would be feasible and would still include him in the L.I.D. Mr. John Olson stated that there is ample flow on this property. Mr. Lawson reassured the property owners that preliminary reviews are always made of the involved prop- erties when -.sewers are being placed. Ms. Carol Hahn of 1030 3rd Ave. So. stated that Mr. Hahn owned property in the district which was vacant and questioned whether he would be required to pay this assessment. The Mayor stated that all property in the L.I.D. is assessed whether it be a vacant lot or not. Mr. Fred White of 1042 3rd Ave. So. stated that he owns a piece of property in this district. He inquired as to the assessment including anything more than the extension to the sewer line. Mr. Larson stated that the installation will include the sewer line and then the laterals to the property. The laterals to the property line will be an additional charge which would run about $175.00 and the property line to the house is the responsibility of the property owner. Mrs. Handran of 1023 3rd Ave. So. stated that there were quite a few of her neighbors who had been paying sewer charges since 1952. It was her feeling that they should have some consideration because of the expenses which they have incurred over a period of years. The Mayor stated that one consideration might be that the City did install this dry sewer some seven or eight years ago when the prices were considerably lower and that the property owners are going to benefit from this. Councilman Gould asked whether notices which show the zoned property, the new assessed unit cost per zone front foot and the.new assessed cost would be sent out to the property owners in the event we pass the ordinance and form the L.I.D. Mr. Larson stated that this would be appropriate. He further explained that these are merely estimates and that we try to estimate high so that the final assessment is lower than expected. Mr. Larson suggested that we send out a revised assessments if we do go through with the L.I.D. Mr. John.King of 1051 3rd Ave. So. stated that he is a property owner just to the north of the • freeway bridge. He said that he is 100% for the L.I.D. because he has sewer problems whenever there is inclement weather. The public portion of the hearing was closed. MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THAT THE CITY GO FORWARD WITH L.I.D. 204 AND THAT THE CITY PARTICIPATE. IN THE COST OF $13,949.66 AND THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE 1989. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gould asked where the $13,949.66 will come from. Mr. Larson stated that it would be taken from the Water/Sewer Fund and that the $8,872.50 is included in this amount. REPORT FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ON TIMETABLE FOR UPDATING ORDINANCES TO IMPLEMENT POLICY PLAN Community Development Director John LaTourelle referred to his memorandum addressed to Mayor Harrison wherein he points out that this type of work requires large blocks of uninterrupted time. The present staff is at its capacity just handling the normal flow of work, and the time to do this extra task will have to be taken from the administrative work -load. He stated that the Planning Division is at 110%.work capacity as it now stands and that people are putting in volunteer hours over and above their normal 8-hour day just to move the paper work along. He is concerned about the possibility of running into personnel problems. Councilman Naughten stated that his would be a good priority item to be discussed during the workshop at Port Ludlow. Mr. LaTourelle agreed that this would be an excellent time for further discussion on this matter as well as what the planning should be on a long-range basis. Councilwoman Allen stated that if we are serious about the plan, we may have to implement. Mr. LaTourelle stated that there was also information to be discussed regarding organizational structure which he hopes to see to administer the ordinance plans. CONTINUED DISCUSSION TO AUTHORIZE A NEEDED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT (WATER TANK) TO EXCEED ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS (FROM MARCH'21 and APRIL 4) is Mr. Leif Larson stated that the information he would be presenting is a supplement to the data which was presented on March 21, 1978. He was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Gaylord Riach on behalf of Dr. Schert in which it was indicated that they would prefer alternative #1; however with some provisions stipulated that we relocate the proposed right-of-way in order to allow for a landscaping strip between the right-of-way and the tank. We are also in receipt of an analysis from the consulting engineer'John Olsen of Reid, Middleton & Associates. Mr. Larson prepared sketches which he presented to the Council for review. One of the sketches was of the present site which we acquired from Dr. Suchert. He pointed out the Fire Station site and the proposed right-of-way. Mr. Larson's proposal is that we would leave the tank as it is on alternate #1 and relocate this right-of-way in such a way that we would have 20' more between the tank and the right-of-way which would allow us ample room for plantings. Our alternate #1 is the same as it was previously with only one exception . . . that we would relocate the pro- posed right-of-way. Councilman Naughten asked how that would benefit the Sucherts? Mrs. Suchert wishing to talk, the public portion of the hearing was opened. Mrs. Suchert of 8430 Main St. stated that the only reason for having moved over was that we felt if the City would have the additional 20' they could put in their plantings on their own property instead of infringing on our own right-of-way and we would still be left with the complete 50'. "We are completely satisfied with the way it is now proposed if the City will maintain the large trees in the back of the proposed water tank." Mayor Harrison asked if the sole reason for shifting the right-of-way was to preserve the trees. Mrs. Suchert said that this was one of the reasons and the other reason was that they wanted to keep their full 50' of right-of-way without having landscaping put on it. Ms. Toni Fahey of 8524 Bowdoin Way thanked the Council for the extra time they had allowed so that the residents could do a little more studying of the water tank proposals. She stated that she now believes they are in full understanding of the need for the tank with the exception of the place- ment of the tank at the Five Corners site next to the tank which is presently there. She stated that she had studied, along with several of her interested neighbors, portions of two reports; the April 18, 1978 - continued 215 • Alternate Storage System Report that was presented two.weeks ago, and the Water System Storage and Transmission Analysis, the final draft of which was presented in August, 1977. She stated that she had asked Mr. Jim Mueller to assist her in the -presentation of facts and comments. Ms. Fahey pre- sented the staff with a chronological list showing actions taken on the proposal of the Five Corners water tank since 1965. She stated that she did not see any justification in pushing this matter through as it has been done the past few weeks. The Mayor stated that our prime reason for attempt- ing to come to a decision on the water tank issue was Because of the pressure on the City to meet the Fire Safety requirements. Mrs. Robert Bell of 8528 Bowdoin Way stated that she had talked with the City Clerk regarding flouridation. Her question was,."how can you flouridate half of the City — and not the other half? Have these people been notified?" Mr. Leif Larson answered by stating that notification is sent out by the Water Department to those people who are.receiving flouride in their water. Those people not receiving notices are not receiving flouridated water. Councilman Carns stated that this had nothing to do with the issue before the Council tonight. Ms. Fahey pre- sented some comments regarding the environmental impact of an above ground tank whether it is alter;= nate #2 or the basic plan proposal. In her comments she referred to the environmental. checklist and various ma.te:rfa71 presented by Reid, Middleton & Associates. She asked the correct height which is proposed"for the tank. Mr. John Olsen of Reid, Middleton & Associates stated that the height'is 48' to the overflow line and that the exact height will depend upon the final design of the tank. The - tank could be designed to go 50' in height. The request of Ms. Fahey and her neighbors was to place the water tank underground. At the conclusion of her questions to the Council and Mr. John Olsen, Ms. Fahey stated that she felt the two water tanks at Five Corners would be a monstrosity and that the proposed water tank should be placed underground.with provisions made for a park or the like above it. E 1 1 Mr. Jim Mueller of 209 Casper Street presented.comments, questions and.arguments regarding the place- ment of the proposed water tank. He pointed out that positioning the tank as proposed would require taking down a number of poplar trees as well as.the laurel hedge which is presentaly an appealing sight on the property. He felt that a 50' tank would have tremendous adverse visual impact, both on the citizens of Edmonds and the people who would be driving into the city. He felt that there should be a plan for the suppression of noise. He questioned the storage capacity of the two tanks during the peak hours.as well as the need to meet the fire requirements. Mr. Olsen stated that we want to have a uniform flow going into both tanks during all hours of the day, even during the peak periods. Mr. Mueller inquired about,the fire protection storage requirements and asked how we determined the storage deficiences. Mr. John Olsen explained the manner in which we arrive at this figure to Mr. Mueller's satisfaction. Mr. Mueller then asked whay we could not interchange between two water tanks and why can't one water tank beplacedlunderground and another above ground. Mr. Larson stated that when he referred to not mixing the two systems, it meant that the head of one tank could not be against the head of another. Regarding the flouridated water, there are certain residents who have medical problems and if we would keep changing the quantity of flouride, we would present a problem to them. Mr. Larson went on to say that we have to keep a uniform flow coming from Alderwood in such a way that we do'not get into a peak demand situation. This is also the case where the Seattle supply is concerned,. Furthermore, it so happens that neither lines are sufficient in size to take care of the peaks for the other system. Mr. Mueller questioned the amount of property needed for both alternate #1 and alternate #2. Mr. John Olsen replied that the same amount of property is required.for each plan. In conclusion, Mr. Mueller stated that he did not feel an under- ground tank would impose that excessive a financial burden on the citizens and that the aesthetic impact of an above ground water tank would be tremendous. Mr. Gary Stanford, a resident living in the Five Corners area, stated that he could see the trees which are now on the site from his home. He expressed his preference for an underground tank. He stated that the City must have spent quite a bit of money in putting in underground wiring and he would like to see the same decision made,on the water tank. The public portion of the hearing was closed. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN KATIE ALLEN MOVED THAT THE WATER TANK AT FIVE CORNERS BE BURIED. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST (Failed) SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilman Naughten stated that he would be opposed to this motion as an underground tank would be too costly and that the $400!;000-$500,000 additional cost would Plate., -,.more ofsa':burden on the citizens of Edmonds. He feels that the proposal to adjust the right-of-way which would give us an additional 20' for plantings to be used as screening is the more realistic plan. Councilwoman Allen pointed out that if we did bury the tank that there would be some fallouts to the community in the addition of a playfield or park system above the water tank which would be advantag- eous. It was her feeling that the $2 - $3.00 per household, per year.would not be excessive con- sidering the release of the visual impact of an above ground water tank. Councilman Gould stated that we had already issued the bonds for the $1,000,000.00 project and asked whether this would be in- sufficient to cover the underground tank. Mr. Leif Larson stated that at -the present time we are in the process of completing drawings for the replacement of water lines which was also included along with some other projects which need taking care of and the present bond issue would be insufficient to cover an underground water tank. Councilman Carns stated that he would vote against the motion because of the fact that the additional costs would be some one-half million dollars and that one- half million dollars could go a long way towards taking care of projects in the City of Edmonds, including the' purchase of the Elementary School location. Also, the funding costs each year are both a waste of money and a waste of utilization of our natural resources. For us to waste energy is not necessary and is pure folly. I do not support this motion. Councilman Gould stated that he sees the advantages in having the tank put underground,. but he feels it is also wrong to burn up the extra energy as pointed out in the previous week's report. He stated that even though he personally would like to see the tank underground, we have to consider the per capita cost and the energy sit- uation. He said that he would rather see alternate #2 used along with some very good screening. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS HERB, GOULD, CARNS AND NAUGHTEN VOTING "NO" AND COUNCILWOMAN.ALLEN AND COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST VOTING "YES MOTION FAILED TO CARRY. MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED TO ADOPT THE PROPOSAL OF ALTERNATE #2 AS SHOWN IN FIGURE "X-2" WITH THE CHANGE IN RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE: (B) THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICES OR FACILITIES NOW OR IN THE FUTURE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY; 2 e 1 April 18, 1978 - continued (C) THAT THE MEASURE, QUANTITY OR AMOUNT BY WHICH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT WILL EXCEED RESTRIC • TIONS REFERRED TO IN SECTION.I OF THIS SUBSECTION IS THE MINIMUM EXCESS NEEDED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SERVICES OR FACILITIES; (D) THAT REASONABLE EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO•MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE THE EFFECT OF THE MUNI- CIPAL IMPROVEMENT WHEN IT IS PERMITTED TO EXCEED THE RESTRICTIONS REFERRED TO IN SECTION I OF THIS SUBSECTION. Councilwoman Allen asked if there was a possibility that the Council would consider alternate plan #2 that was presented at the last discussion of the water tank. Councilman Carns said he would vote against it as it would involve the acquisition of additional property, possible condemnations, court trials and a lot of legal involvement. He stated that by changing the right-bf-way we could allow for.an additional.20' of plantings which would serve as good screening. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN SECONDED THE MOTION OF COUNCILMAN CARNS. A ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS HERB, GOULD, CARNS AND NAUGHTEN VOTING "YES" AND COUNCIL MEMBERS NORDQUIST AND ALLEN VOTING "NO". MOTION CARRIED. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR COORDINATED SURFACE WATER PLANNING IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY Leif Larson, Director of Public Works, stated that the Snohomish County Planning Department has prepared a Memorandum of Understanding in such a way that there would be coordinated planning in regards to drainage, especially in the South County area and parts of North King County. This proposed memorandum has already been adopted by two or three cities. Our City Attorney has reviewed it and affixed his signature to it. I would like to recommend that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign this Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Larson wanted to make mention of the fact that our efforts on the Lake Ballinger study have resulted in $900,000.00 coming from Mountlake Terrace for deficiencies in the lake. He stated that this type of effort is a ways MOTION: and means of cities banning together in matters of mutual interest. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE MEMORANDUM AGREE- MENT. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. • AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDED INTERLOCAL SNOCOM AGREEMENT Councilman Carns stated that he was a member of the SNOCOM Board, as well as a member ofthe Inter - local Agreement Committee. He has provided the Council with the agreement which SNOCOM currently has, copies of the new Agreement as amended as well as an addendum which would set up a para- medic program in South Snohomish County. Councilman Carns stated that he would be happy to answer any additional questions the Council might have. Councilman Gould inquired as to what portion of the annual budget Edmonds would be responsible for. Councilman Carns stated that the amount which Councilman Gould was referring to is the amount which would be set aside for the paramedic program and has nothing to do with the ongoing operations. The current SNOCOM ongoing operations funding is also computed on the same basis, but it is different from the paramedic program. Councilman Carns stated that the funding formula was changed two years ago in order to * lower the costs. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AMENDED SNOCOM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE ADDENDUM. COUNCILMAN CARNS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to come before the City Council, and the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAY, CITY CLERK April 25, 1978 HARVE H. HARRISON, MAYOR The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Mike Herb John LaTourelle, Community Development Dir. Phil Clement Leif Larson, Director Public Works Katherine Allen Art Housler, Finance Director Larry Naughten Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk John Nordquist John Wallace, City Attorney Ray Gould Jo Ann Fischer, Recording"Secretary Tom Carns CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Carns requested that Item (B), Approval of Minutes of April 18, 1978 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN TO APPROVE THE RE- MAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 1978 Councilman Carns requested an addition be made to the Minutes of April 18, 1978. On page 9, under the caption "AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDED INTERLOCAL SNOCOM AGREEMENT," in the last sentence of the paragraph it should read: "Councilman Carns stated that the funding formula was changed two years ago in order to lower the costs to Fire District #l.'. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED 1 *See amendment April 18, 1978 **See addition May 2, 1978 •