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 •