Loading...
11/19/1991 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO NOVEMBER 26 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 19, 1991 The meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Larry S. Naughten, Mayor Jack Wilson, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember Bill Kasper, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Jeff Palmer, Councilmember ABSENT Amanda Foote Student Representative Councilmember Dwyer arrived at 7:05 p.m. STAFF Art Housler, Admin. Serv. Dir. Buzz Buzalsky, Fire Chief Noel Miller, P.W. Super. Bob Alberts, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Planning Supr. Peter Hahn, Comm. Serv. Dir. Arvilla Ohlde, Parks & Rec Mgr Mike Springer, Asst Fire Chief Scott Snyder, City Attorney Barb Mehlert, Recorder PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION TO ED SCOTT AND RECEPTION HONORING HIS 100TH BIRTHDAY Mayor Naughten congratulated Mr. Scott on his 100th birthday and presented him with a Proclamation, and a framed picture on behalf of the City of Edmonds. Mayor Naughten read the proclamation to the audience, and proclaimed November 25, 1991, as "ED SCOTT DAY" in Edmonds. Mayor Naughten proceeded to give a review of Mr. Scotts accomplishments which included serving as a past president of the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, and a past member of the Edmonds Planning Board. The City Council congratulated Mr. Scott and gave him a standing ovation as he came forward to receive his Proclamation and the City's gift to him. The Council recessed for fifteen minutes to celebrate Mr. Scotts birthday with a birthday cake and reconvened at 7:20 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (B), (D), and (J) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (It is noted that approval of Items (G), (H), and (1), were later in the meeting deferred to November 26th.) (A) ROLL CALL (C) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE FROM LEE MARKS ($192.97) AND PATRICIA A. MOREHOUSE (AMOUNT UNKNOWN) a� (E) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 727 APPROVING THE HOUSEKEEPING REVISIONS TO THE WASHINGTON CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY ASSOCIATED SAND AND GRAVEL ON THE SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT PAVING PROJECT AND SETTING THE 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR TEN -FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM NICK STEMM AND NANCY DENSON AT 19017 SOUNDVIEW PLACE DIES. a (M) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 1991 AND NOVEMBER 12, 1991 (ITEM (B) ON CONSENT AGENDA ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR TEN -FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM GOGERT & SONS, INC., AT 16406 75TH PL. W. ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR FIVE-FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM PHILIP ZEVENBERGEN AT 9121 BOWDOIN WAY APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. FOR MAPPING OF SR 99 FOR 1992 WATER PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ($1,600.00) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT WITH ESCA AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FROM FUND 125 REPLACEMENT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FROM BIG TOY ($2,464.00) AND QUALITY INDUSTRIES ($380.00). Councilmember Palmer referenced the minutes of November 4th and a memo from the City Clerk regarding a request for a correction from Councilmember Hertrich. Councilmember Palmer said he will not vote for that correction, as it is his feeling the comments were made facetiously, and stated the City Clerk and Minute Taker recognized that fact also. Councilmember Palmer stated Council President Wilson is a designated member of the Edmonds Visitors Bureau, and as such, is free to speak with that board. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4 AND NOVEMBER 12 AS SUBMITTED, AND NOT ADOPT THE CHANGES AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY CLERK AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR THE MASTER PLAN FOR SOUTHWEST COUNTY PARK ($10,000). (Item (D) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA) Councilmember Nordquist noted that documentation provided by Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Manager, stated the City/County selection committee selected the firm of Nakano Dennis Landscape. Councilmember Nordquist noted the City also has a consultant selection committee, and wanted to clarify for the record that this committee was not involved in this particular selection, rather it was the City's Planning Board. Councilmember Palmer asked Ms. Ohide about Section 4.3 on page 5 of the agenda memo, "Deliverables". Ms. Ohlde said that element was left in when the City presented the interlocal agreement. Mr. Ohlde said a standard has always existed that the City ask for one hard copy and one reproducible copy. Ms. Ohlde said she asked the County as to what they had agreed to on the contract with Nakano Dennis, and they had left out a deliverable element of that product, because they wanted to stay within the $20,000, from the City and County, as their budget limit. Ms. Ohlde suggested leaving the item of "Deliverables" out of this EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 November 19, 1991 current interlocal with the County, because the City is simply entering into an agreement to work together as two units of government. Councilmember Palmer referenced paragraph 4.1, page 4 and requested the insertion of "and County" after "City" so that both entities are bound by the provision. Councilmember Palmer also requested the following information be added to the first page under "Purpose": 'The City and County have intended the park be developed for passive recreational uses". COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM (D) WITH THE ADDITION OF: THE CORRECTIONS AS NOTED. Under discussion, Councilmember Kasper asked Ms. Ohlde where she got the idea the County purchased the park with IAC funds, and Ms. Ohlde said the information is contained in the files that have letters and the application. Ms. Ohide said it was purchased from the University of Washington with matching monies from the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. Councilmember Kasper said it was his understanding it was purchased by a land swap. Ms. Ohide said she would look into the matter and respond back to the Council. MOTION CARRIED. ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR TEN -FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM P&L ENTERPRISES AT 7632 230TH ST. S.W. (ITEM (J) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA) ` Councilmember Nordquist suggested that from here on forward, the Council receive a vicinity map, giving the Council a better idea of the location of the Quit Claim. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON TO MOVE THIS ITEM FORWARD TO THE NOVEMBER 26TH CONSENT AGENDA IN ORDER TO INCLUDE A VICINITY MAP. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hertrich noted that Items (G) (H). and (1) on the Consent Agenda are also Quit Claims and they should also require vicinity maps. Councilmember Hertrich suggested moving these items forward as well. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, TO RECONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND REMOVE ITEMS (G), (H) AND (1) FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF MOVING THEM AHEAD TO THE CONSENT AGENDA ON NOVEMBER 26TH IN ORDER TO INCLUDE A VICINITY MAP FOR EACH QUIT CLAIM. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE Gary Fiske, 8017 180th PI. S.W., Edmonds, thanked the City Council and Mayor for including the word "Passive" in relation to the Master Plan for the Southwest County Park. Mr. Fiske said this was a concern of n the neighbors surrounding the park, and everyone is a lot more comfortable knowing the park was will Qy remain passive. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 November 19, 1991 FINAL REPORT BY ARTS COMMISSION ON EDMONDS COLLECTION PROJECT TO HEKINAN SISTER l CITY p� Josephine Fye, Chair of the Edmonds Arts Commission, presented a report on the successful completion of the Edmonds Art Collection and its presentation to the Sister City Hekinan, Japan. Ms. Fye stated the collection was presented as part of a public ribbon cutting ceremony on October 22, 1991, as part of that city's Cultural Association's 40th anniversary festivities. Ms. Fye said the presentation went extremely well and the people of Hekinan were most appreciative and gracious. Ms. Fye said the Sister City contracted with Edmonds resident Darlene McLellan to curate the collection because of her familiarity with Japanese an and culture. Ms. Fye praised Mr. McLellan for her fine work and said she put a great deal of effort into communicating with Hekinan officials to insure accurate translation of all documents. Ms. Fye thanked the City Council and the Mayor for their support, as well as the entire community. Ms. Fye stated there was great support from community volunteers and expressed her gratitude towards them. Mayor Naughten thanked Ms. Fye and the Arts Commission for all'their work in coordinating the exhibition, and realized the amount of work involved. PUBLIC HEARING ON 1992 BUDGET Bill Kearn, 1151 5th Ave. South, voiced his concern over the failure of the EMS levy. Mr. Kearn said he understands that if the City successfully passes an EMS levy in 1992, the funding would not be present until 1993. Mr. Kearn stated he has been a recipient of this service, and would be willing to put up money -ahead of time so there would be a fund available for this vital service. Mr. Kearn suggested the citizens who did not want to provide funds for this service could be charged for the service on a as -used basis. Mike Cooper, 820 Maple Street, addressed the funding problems of the EMS in the City of Edmonds. Mr. Cooper said he was disturbed to read the Council was considering a service charge for the use of EMS. Mr. Cooper urged the Council to reconsider that thought because it is his feeling the citizens of Edmonds deserves better than that. Mr.. Cooper stated in the late 60's, the City of Edmonds utilized an aid car without the use of a levy. Mr. Cooper said the reason the City started the aid car service in the first place was because the private ambulance companies in that area at that time charged an exorbitant amount, and provided inadequate medical services to the citizens. Mr. Cooper stated if a user fee was utilized in the City of Edmonds, this would open the door for private ambulance companies to come into the City with lower rates, taking the control from the City and also make a profit. Mr. Cooper said Edmonds contains a large number of senior citizens who are on a fixed income, and many could not afford to watt five or ten minutes in an emergency before dialing 911 to determined they can afford to receive emergency service Mr. Cooper recognizes the.fact the City has a serious budget problem due to the failure of the EMS, however, he stated that 57% of the people voted Yes, which is a majority. Mr. Cooper asked the Council to consider other options such as increasing property taxes at the Council level, as well as utility charges and belt tightening across the board in order to fund EMS. Jack Bevan, 19210 94th West, stated he reviewed the Preliminary Budget, and said if you take what the City has budgeted for 1992 against the income of 1991, the City is spending approximately 10% more than the previous year from income, and not from the change between the two budgets, as the City didn't earn enough in 1991 to cover last year's budget. Mr. Bevan stated his concern that if the City doesn't get closer to a balanced budget, a bonding situation is going to exist where it will be reduced and Edmonds will not have the favorable light it has had in the past. Mr. Bevan also commented he felt the EMS is becoming a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 November 19, 1991 burden to the Fire Department, as they are getting saddled with the total program, and Mr. Bevan suggested that EMS could be a separate division and have its' own entity. Donald Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Road, Edmonds stated his Father passed away two years ago at his home on Ballinger Road. Mr. Rutledge said an ambulance was called to the house, but because of heavy snow, a normal two minute trip to the house by the ambulance took 15 minutes. Mr. Rutledge said it was his understanding the City is $800,000 short in the Budget and might not have emergency service in January. Mr. Rutledge said several communities have sent people out to various service organizations to raise money for the community in order to provide aid service, and Mr. Rutledge feels that could be done here in Edmonds also. HEARING ON NORMA BEACH/PICNIC POINT AREA ANNEXATION. Rob Chave, Planning Manager, updated the Council on new information received regarding the proposed annexation. Mr. Chave referenced Area "A" and suggested there was approximately $115,000 in that area which was direct sales tax revenue. Mr. Chave referenced Area "B" and noted there was approximately $85,000, which brings a total of $200,000 when you combine both areas. Mr. Chave noted these figures are just from select businesses in which the City surveyed. Mr. Chave said over a six year period in area "A" without any sales tax calculation considered at all, the City would be approximately $310,459 on the negative side. Mr. Chave said if you combined Area "B", the City would be $820,492 on the positive side. Mr. Chave further stated over a six year period in Area "A", with Sales Tax equalization, the City would be approximately $158,549 on the negative side, but if you combined Area A and Area B, the City would be $2,296,492 on the positive side. Mr. Chave said with the short list of businesses the City was able to get tax revenues from, Area A would produce over $500,000 positive cash flow from a budgetary standpoint. Mr. Chave said if you combined Area A and B, that figure jumps to over 3 million dollars from a budgetary standpoint. Mr. Chave stated these figures are extremely conservative. Mr. Chave prevented a view foil showing what the County Hazardous Areas Inventory says have a high or very high degree of landslide hazard. Mr. Chave said these would be comparable to Meadowdale and some of the other slope areas currently in the City. Mr. Chave said most of the areas are around the Gulch proper, and also along much of the bluff area. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Leroy McNulty, 6815 160th St. S.W., stated he is present to oppose the annexation. Mr. McNulty said he read the Staff report and disagreed with some of the findings. Mr. McNulty realizes the sales tax figures used in the original report have been upgraded, but still has a question about the original estimate of $300,000 to $600,000 being the sales tax revenues from the area. Mr. McNulty stated he lives in Edmonds, and works for the City of Lynnwood, and is familiar with the sales tax revenues from the City of Lynnwood. Mr. McNulty stated the tax revenues in Lynnwood amount to 9 million dollars a year and cannot perceive how a few businesses in Edmonds could possibly generate $600,000 a year. Mr. McNulty noted this is nearly 10% of the total of what the City of Lynnwood would generate. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 November 19, 1991 Mr. McNulty said the report rates the roads as fair to good, but mentioned Beverly -Edmonds Road is not in good condition. Mr. McNulty also mentioned the report stated that two traffic lights would have to be installed; one on 148th on Beverly -Edmonds Road, and one at the intersection of Picnic Point and Beverly - Edmonds Road. Mr. McNulty noted those alone are $500,000 items. Mr. McNulty said Picnic Point Road and Puget Sound Road is an annual repair job for the County. Mr. McNulty also addressed the need for an additional police precinct if annexed, as Edmonds would be not able to handle the precinct from their headquarters, which Mr. McNultly feel would add to the costs. Mr. McNulty also expressed his concern over the increased cost of providing fire service to the area. Mr. McNulty stated it was his feeling the citizens of Edmonds should not pay any up front costs for bringing in the north Edmonds annexation area. Rick Jennes, 13620 68th Ave. West, noted he has an Edmonds mailing address, but is considered in the County at present time. Mr. Jennes said he is representing a large number of people who wish to annex into Edmonds. Mr. Jennes said it is his hopes the Council will take some positive action in the way of beginning annexation procedures. Mr. Jennes stated the designation of the Area A and Area B came about because there was a pending annexation from the City of Lynnwood on Area B. Mr. Jennes said Area B came about because that area would logically be included in an Edmonds annexation from the view point of the residents and the City of Edmonds. However, the people in Area B wishing to annex into Edmonds was precluded from circulating petitions because there was a pending annexation from Lynnwood. Mr. Jennes noted the pending annexation of Area B is over, and said the results on the surface, indicate the annexation was defeated by a vote of 579/o to 43%. Mr. Jennes said, however, he doesn't feel that tells the whole story of Area B and how they feel about the City of Edmonds. Mr. Jennes reminded the Council the Lynnwood annexation area included Area B and went down south to approximately 184th, which is east of Highway 99. Mr. Jennes said if you were to consider that area separately, the area east of Highway 99 passed the annexation 55% to 45%. Mr. Jennes said 60% of the votes cast came from east of Highway 99, so with 40% of the vote, Area B reversed it into a 57% to 43% victory, which means that Area B as a whole voted 71 % against the annexation to Lynnwood. Mr. Jennes noted this was done with a campaign budget of only $700. Mr. Jennes stated more importantly, the primary and most populous precincts in Area B voted 80% in favor of annexing into Edmonds, not Lynnwood. Mr. Jennes stated the City of Lynnwood has sent a letter to the County Council asking that another election be held on exactly the same issue. Mr. Jennes said the City of Lynnwood is not interested in having any further public hearings nor do they want to go through the Boundary Review Board. Mr. Jennes said he has also heard the City of Lynnwood is in the process of circulating a 60% annexation petition once again covering the same area. Mr. Jennes urged the Council to seriously consider the proposed annexation before them. Mr. Jennes presented a slide presentation to the Council which showed some characteristic homes and neighborhoods, along with some of the commercial development in the area which is asking to be annexed. Mr. Jennes corresponded his slide presentation with a map, showing the Council exactly where these structures are located. Mayor Naughten inquired if Mr Jennes is referring to Area A or Area B, and Mr. Jennes replied it contains both areas, since the Lynnwood annexation did not go through. Mayor Naughten said it was his thought the annexation discussion was only going to pertain to Area A. Mr. Jennes said he believes there ought not to be an Area A and Area B, as only one area of annexation exists. Mr. Jennes said the only reason there was an Area B in the first place, was because that was an overlapping area for a pending Lynnwood annexation, which is no longer viable. Mayor Naughten commented that it was stated the City of Lynnwood is reconsidering the subject again, and Mr. Jennes replied they are considering it, however, they are trying to go straight to an election, which in Mr. Jennes's opinion, will not go very far. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 November 19, 1991 Mr. Jennes stated he realizes there are some problems associated with the property lying in the annexation area, as far as traffic congestion, upgrading of arterials, etc., however, he feels these can be addressed in a proper and positive way. Mr. Jennes said when you are in a situation where an unincorporated area is surrounded by four cities, such as is the situation at present, there is a need to choose which city to become part of. Mr. Jennes said Edmonds is familiar with high quality residential neighborhoods, and that is what he wants to be associated with. Mr. Jennes said he and the people he represents are more interested in parks than in parking lots. Mr. Jennes also stated he and the people he represents wants a Government who is more interested in the quality of life than the quantity of sales tax revenue. Mr. Jennes stated he and the people he represents want responsive leaders who listen, such as the leaders in the City of Edmonds. Mr. Jennes reviewed various reasons why Edmonds would want to have the subject area as part of their City. Mr. Jennes feels the area is a revenue positive proposal for the City of Edmonds, and also feels the area fits in well with Edmonds as far as quality neighborhoods. Mr. Jennes said another benefit for Edmonds is the potential commercial development which exists. Mr. Jennes went on to explain the subject area is used to paying for their services, and the EMS levy passed at approximately 75% to 80%. Mr. Jennes said right now, the subject property pays $1.30 more a thousand for property taxes than the residents of Edmonds do. Mr. Jennes stated he and a group of citizens came to the City of Edmonds five years ago with the intent of being annexed into the City. Mr. Jennes said due to the situation at that time with Esperance annexation, they were put on hold. Mr. Jennes said these citizens are back now and feels the proposal will benefit all parties involved. Councilmember Hertrich inquired on the sewer capacity in the subject area. Mr. Jennes said the majority of the subject area is serviced by the Alderwood Secondary Treatment Plant, located on Picnic Point Road. Mr. Jennes explained the plant, as built today, has a 3 million gallon capacity, and currently is operating at 2 million gallons. Mr. Jennes went on to say the potential build -out on the site is 6.5 million gallons. Mr. Jennes stated it was his thought that Metro was forecasting a connection which would service the Swamp Creek area, which is the area east of Highway 99. Mr. Jennes said when that connection is made, 40% of existing capacity is going to be diverted into Metro, thus freeing up additional capacity at Picnic Point. Councilmember Dwyer asked what the trade off is for Metro. Mr. Jennes said he hasn't seen the projections from Alderwood Water District yet. Mr. Jennes said he knows Metro is in construction at present, but hasn't seen anything in terms of proposed rate structures. In terms of the amount of development to go into the Swamp Creek interchange, it was Mr. Jennes's opinion that development will be significant. Councilmember Hertrich asked Mr.Jennes if he is familiar with the County's Public Works facility, and Mr. Jennes said he is familiar with the one by Paine Field on 100th, which is in the County. Dick Hill, 1242 Coronado Place, urged the City Council and the citizens of Edmonds to take a long slow look at this proposed annexation before the City of Edmonds is stampeded into any ill-considered action. Mr. Hill feels the testimony so far favoring annexation is purely speculative. Mr. Hill indicated there was a study out that indicates if Area A and Area B are annexed to Edmonds, city taxes will increase by 105%. Councilmember Palmer asked Mr. Hill what study he is referring to, and Mr. Hill replied the study was performed by City of Lynnwood administration. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 November 19, 1991 Mr. Hill expressed his opinion that the proposed annexation is being hyped by a very small group of people. Mr. Hill said very few citizens of Edmonds aren't even aware of this at all. Christie Mueller, 6627 158th PI. S.W., Edmonds, said she has questions pertaining to what annexation would mean to her in the form of costs to her as a homeowner. Ms. Mueller stated she is part of a small cul-de-sac located in the County, and noted her residence is on septic. Ms. Mueller asked what the costs would be in changing over to sewer, if annexation takes place. Ms. Mueller said she has talked to various officials in the City of Edmonds, and she had been given a range from $1,000 to $20,000. Ms. Mueller asked the Council for guidance, so she is able to make a good decision regarding the proposed annexation. Councilmember Palmer replied it isn't easy to give a pat answer, as there are too many varying circumstances that could take place, and asked a member of Staff to come forward if they had a better answer. Peter Hahn, Community Services Director, agreed with Councilmember Palmer and said there are too many variables to come up with one figure, and short of performing an engineering study, a set amount cannot be set. Ronald L. Hill, 3421 Lincoln Way, expressed his desire to be annexed into Edmonds, and asked the Council to thoroughly consider the issue. Councilmember Dwyer said given the number of people present in the audience concerning this subject, he would like to extend the hearing in order to continue to receive testimony from the public. Councilmember Dwyer said he wants the people to feel they have had their opportunity to express their views. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER TO CONTINUE THE ITEM FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Gerry Jennings, 15205 63rd Ave. W., urged the Council to pass the resolution. Ms. Jennings feels the window of opportunity could be closing, as Lynnwood is again trying to annex the area, and said nothing states the City of Edmonds cannot change their minds before the proposed annexation goes through the Boundary Review Board process. Ms. Jennings said there is a time frame involved, and feels if the resolution is not approved this evening, the City of Edmonds might lose the opportunity in the future. Ms. Jennings said she and the others have worked very hard to be fair and have talked to everyone possible in order to get their facts and figures accurate on the conservative side. Mayor Naughten inquired if Lynnwood is proposing to annex Area B, and Ms. Jennings replied affirmatively. Ms. Jennings said however, that Area A and Area B should not be divided, and that it should be annexed into Edmonds as one package. Mayor Naughten asked Ms. Jennings what her feelings would be if the areas were divided. Ms. Jennings replied the City of Edmonds probably wouldn't pass the proposal because there wouldn't be enough income in Area A alone. Ms. Jennings feels Area A and Area B need to be a package. Ms. Jennings also stated the Boundary Review Board would not be too happy with dividing the area, as they are trying very hard to consolidate areas. Loren Gabriel, 6415 136th PI., urged the Council to pass the resolution and begin the annexation procedures to preclude Lynnwood from their repeated efforts in annexing Area B. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 November 19, 1991 Grant Woodfield, 13721 68th Ave. W, said he is opposed to the proposed annexation and preferred to be governed by the County or the City of Lynnwood. Mr. Woodfield distributed a memorandum to the Council that contained questions regarding the proposed annexation. Mr. Woodfield said if being annexed to Edmonds is such a good thing, why have the people living in the Esperance area voted down annexation at least three times. Laurence Hadlund, 5510 135th PI. S.W., expressed his desire to become part of the City of Edmonds. Mr. Hadlund stated he was at the Boundary Review Board several months ago, in which Councilmember Palmer was present, and noted that the Mayor of Lynnwood and the Fire Chief of Lynnwood kept trying to strike fear into the people by saying there would be inferior fire protection and aid service if annexation to Lynnwood did not take place. Mr. Hadlund stated South Snohomish County and Southwest County have automatic aid agreements whereas the closest fire and aid unit would respond, regardless of the political boundaries. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Palmer referenced the question on sewer trade off with Metro that Councilmember Dwyer brought up. Councilmember Palmer asked staff if it is known what is being traded. Bob Alberts; City Engineer, said the Alderwood Sewer District and Metro have an agreement several years old to service the area, and the payback for Metro will probably be that line will eventually connect to the West Point system, and Mr. Alberts suggested future connections would be fairly high. Councilmember Palmer inquired if there was a provision in the expense figures for a police sub -station in the subject area, and Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager said it was his understanding after talking with the Police Department, that if the Fire Station went with the City, they would man a satellite office only. Regarding surface water and the slide area, Councilmember Palmer noted the slide presentation mentioned that certain portions of Area A were similar to the Meadowdale area. Councilmember Palmer said there are Meadowdale Ordinances which address the development and restrictions thereof. Councilmember Palmer asked if it would be likely that a similar ordinance would be enacted in that annexed area, were it to be accepted into the City. Mr. Chave replied the Meadowdale Ordinances would need to be reviewed in order to see what parts of the ordinance would apply. Mr. Chave also said the City could update the Sensitive Areas map, and handle it through SEPA. Mr. Chave said in either case, a very close regulatory review would be present. City Attorney Scott Snyder interjected the Meadowdale Ordinance is automatically applicable to the building permit process, based on the characteristics of the property. Mr. Snyder said it was his assumption if the area was annexed, the City would update the Sensitive Areas map, which would automatically incorporate the areas under the building permit provisions. Councilmember Hertrich said it was mentioned the County had a Public Works station at Paine Field. Councilmember Hertrich feels that if the subject area became part of the City of Edmonds, there would have to be some sort of satellite Public Works facility in that area, and wondered if that had been taken into consideration. Councilmember Hertrich said it was his feeling that the City would end up having a satellite Fire Station, Police Station, and Public Works station. Public Works Superintendent Noel Miller said by moving the Public Works Facility to 212th and Highway 99, the City would be in more of a strategic area to service the area going up Highway 99. Mr. Miller stated the City may have to look into enlarging the planned facility, which is presently in the planning stages, if the proposed area was to be annexed. Councilmember Hertrich said he was concerned about the distance and the need for certain vehicles to be housed in an area where they would generally work. Councilmember Hertrich stated it would cost the City a great deal of money to have materials driven back and forth for a job, and Councilmember Hertrich expressed his opinion that those costs should be part of the planning. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -Page 9 November 19, 1991 Councilmember Dwyer asked what the typical contingency or retainage is on a Public Works contract which exceed 1 million dollars, and City Engineer Bob Alberts replied it would be 10% to 15%. Councilmember Hertrich asked if expansion of City Hall had been taken into consideration in order to accommodate the new services, and inquired on the dollar amount. Mr. Chave replied no provision was made for that purpose. Mr. Chave presumed that would fall under a General Bond. Councilmember Palmer inquired on the Highway 99 Improvement Project. Councilmember Palmer said if the project goes as far as 148th, what is the dollar commitment required by the City of Edmonds if the City annexed the area up to 148th. Community Services Director Peter Hahn replied the formula at present is based on frontage, and that formula would have to be changed. Mr. Hahn said the City also should keep in mind the City would be receiving added revenues. Councilmember Palmer inquired if the revenue increase would equal the expenditure, and Mr. Hahn said he doesn't recall what frontage Snohomish County has. Mr. Hahn asked the Council to keep in mind the fact that because this would be a Transportation Improvement Project, 80% would be TIB money, and the other 2 millon one hundred is Department of Transportation money, so the local share to begin with for Edmonds, Lynnwood and Snohomish County was a very minor percentage. Councilmember Palmer asked Mr. Hahn for a ball park figure, and Mr. Hahn said he recalled a figure of $200,000 to $300,000 which was Edmonds share, assuming the 2 million one hundred from the Department of Transportation. Mr. Hahn stated he doesn't recall what the figures were for Snohomish County, but at worst case Mr. Hahn felt it would be another $200,000. Councilmember Nordquist referenced a comment made previously by a member of the public concerning Esperance not wanting to come into the City of Edmonds. Councilmember Nordquist said that most of the people who live in the Esperance area use the downtown facilities of Edmonds free of charge, so there is really no reason for them to annex to Edmonds. Councilmember Nordquist noted it was interesting to see the people before the Council who do not live in proximity of the downtown Edmonds area, but still want to be a part of the City. Councilmember Nordquist commented the Administrative Space Needs for the City of Edmonds is in desperate need, and if the subject area is annexed, those people will be asked to support the Space Needs, as well as support the City in hiring additional staff to support the proposed annexation. Mayor Naughten stated he has no problem with looking into Annexing Area A, but is concerned with Area B. Mayor Naughten said the City has worked hard to develop a good interlocal agreement with Lynnwood and Mayor Naughten feels that as long as Lynnwood is looking at Area B, Edmonds should not be considering it at all. Councilmember Jaech noted this was the Mayors opinion, and not necessarily the opinion of the Council. Councilmember Palmer referenced a statement by a member of the public, that there is willingness to continue at the same level of taxation as they are currently paying with the County. Councilmember Palmer asked City Attorney Scott Snyder if this is an option, and Mr. Snyder said the City levy is a uniform tax rate. Mr.. Snyder said the City could establish LID's and other devices in forms of special levies to fund special projects in the area. Councilmember Palmer asked if an LID proposal equal to the amount of that difference could be tied to an annexation measure, and Mr. Snyder replied negatively. Mr. Snyder said the Council could pass a resolution stating the Councils' intent going into the annexation, but the City's ability to legislate with respect to the area commences when the election results are certified. Council President Wilson said he understands why the people want to be part of Edmonds, but he has problems believing any of the figures, as there are too many variables and unknowns. Council President Wilson stated Growth Management will most likely in time dictate that Esperance become part of Edmonds. Council President Wilson said if this does happen, the City of Edmonds will become a city of EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 November 19, 1991 approximately 50,000, and would grow to approximately 80,000 to 90,000 people ff the subject annexation was accepted. Council President Wilson expressed his opinion that bigger is not necessarily better, and to proceed with the annexation based on revenues is deceptive. Council President Wilson believes the small town atmosphere is special and one that should be preserved. Council President Wilson said he wants the Council to decide whether or not they want a larger city to manage. Council President Wilson stated his motion may not be popular with the citizens within the proposed annexation area, however, Council President Wilson feels it will be popular with the Citizens of Edmonds, therefore, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER FOR DISCUSSION, THAT THE CITY REJECT THE PETITION AND NOT PURSUE THE NORMA BEACH/PICNIC POINT ANNEXATION ANY FURTHER. Councilmember Jaech stated she takes the opposite position from Council President Wilson. Councilmember Jaech feels the people have shown a willingness to work very hard for what they want and believe in, which is a trait that has been very characteristic of the citizens of Edmonds. Councilmember Jaech agrees that a burden would be incurred initially if the City annexed the subject area, but feels in the long run it would be beneficial. Councilmember Jaech said she would like the Council to pass the Resolution this evening, and welcome them into the City. Councilmember Palmer also expressed his concern over the ultimate size of the City of Edmonds, and does not want to loose the small town atmosphere. Councilmember Palmer said the proposed annexation area does look and feel more like Edmonds than it does the adjoining communities, but is concerned with the expenses. Councilmember Palmer stated he is concerned with the relationship with the City of Lynnwood. Councilmember Palmer said a good working relationship does exist however, Councilmember Palmer is not convinced that has to be compromised in light of this proposed annexation and does not feel intimidated by posturing across the border. Councilmember Palmer said the one missing element for him is that no information exists that shows him how the citizens of Edmonds feel about the proposed annexation, and he would like some of the existing information presented to citizens of Edmonds at large and get a survey on how they feel about having the City expanded to the north to take in the subject area. Councilmember Palmer said the dollar figures lean in favor of annexation only slightly, with both areas combined. Councilmember Palmer said a vote against Council Presidents motion is not a vote for annexation, but it is a vote at cutting off that avenue. Councilmember Jaech commented if the Council delays adoption of the Resolution, the City may loose the section known as Area B, thus loosing the equalization which would cover most of the costs. Councilmember Jaech said it was her understanding that many years ago, the people in Esperance did want to annex into the City of Edmonds, and City turned their back on them at that point, and asked Councilmember Nordquist for clarification on this point. Councilmember Nordquist replied annexation in Esperance goes back a long time and a Council years ago wanted to just annex a piece at a time rather than a whole area which ensued into an argument on how the area should be annexed. Councilmember Palmer said a comment was made by a member of the public that it would be possible for the Council to pass the Resolution and then settle a long enough date with the Boundary Review Board, where the proposed annexation could be dismissed by the Council if it chose to do so for any reason. Councilmember Dwyer complimented Mr. Jennes on his diligence and expressed his appreciation for the work that went into this proposed annexation. Councilmember Dwyer said Mr. Jennes has been very helpful in providing accurate information. Councilmember Dwyer stated, however, the reality is the EMS levy failed, the City's sales tax projections are off to the negative, along with an $845,000 problem in the budget as things exist right now. Councilmember Dwyer feels the annexation at this point does not make sense in light of the current budgetary problems. Councilmember Dwyer said that he would be willing to EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 November 19, 1991 revisit this issue in 1992 if a EMS levy passes. Councilmember Dwyer feels the City needs to get their own house in order before they take on something of this magnitude. MOTION FAILED with Councilmember Hertrich, Councilmember. Nordquist, Councilmember Palmer, and Councilmember Jaech voting no, _ and Councilmember Dwyer, Council President Wilson, and Councilmember Kasper voting yes. Councilmember Jaech, said she would like to take a different approach and asked City Attorney Scott Snyder if it was legally possible to pass the resolution to go to the Boundary Review Board and retain the right to legally back out of it if the Council chooses to. Mr. Snyder replied the City can back out of the annexation .up until the Council actually passes an ordinance accepting the annexation after the certification of the vote. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO PASS THE RESOLUTION WITH REGARDS TO ANNEXING AREAS A AND B AS A WHOLE, WITH EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONCE THE CITY BUDGET IS FINALIZED AND IF IT IS FOUND THE CITY IS NOT ABLE TO RESOLVE ITS .BUDGET PROBLEMS AND THE EMS LEVY DOES NOT PASS, THERE IS A CHANCE THE CITY MIGHT HAVE TO BACK OUT OF THE ANNEXATION PROCESS. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REFLECT THAT THE COUNCIL WILL SET UP A PROCESS FOR SURVEYING THE CITIZENS OF EDMONDS ON THE QUESTION.AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WISH TO HAVE THE SIZE OF THE CITY EXPANDED TO THE NORTH BY THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS THAT ARE OUT THERE. MOTION TO AMEND PASSED WITH Councilmember. Kasper voting no. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED THEN FAILED with Councilmember Hertrich; Councilmember Dwyer, Councilmember Wilson, and Councilmember Kasper voting no, and Councilmember Palmer, Councilmember Nordquist, and Councilmember Jaech voting yes. Mayor Naughten stated this .matter would be continued at a later date and the council adjourned for a five minute recess. HEARING ON APPROVAL OF HEARING EXAMINER. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BOAT LAUNCHER -AND RELATED FACILITIES AT THE PORT OF EDMONDS, 336 ADMIRAL WAY (APPLICANT: PORT OF. Q EDMONDS/FILE NO. SM-1-91) Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor, stated the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to solicit testimony regarding a request for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit by the Port of Edmonds to demolish and rebuild the existing boat launching facility. Mr. Wilson said the Hearing Examiner entered a recommendation for approval of the requested permit on October 2, 1991, upon consideration of the Staff Advisory Report, the applicants testimony, and public testimony. There were no questions from the Council, and Mayor Naughten opened the hearing up to the public. Since no member of the public came forward to speak, Councilmember Dwyer requested to hear from the applicant, Mr. Bill Stevens, Port Manager. Mr. Stevens said the Port is trying to relieve a traffic jam at the Port. Mr. Stevens said the projection for boats launched have dramatically increased for 1991, and some of the associated congestion needs to be relieved. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 November 19, 1991 Mr. Stevens stated at present time a three hour waiting period sometimes exists for the public to launch their boat. Mr. Stevens feels by constructing a second launcher, the Port hopes to eliminate the congestion in and the congestion out, making it user friendly. Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Stevens if the Port had any plans for a facility for people to off-load car top boats so they would not have to be part of the line to launch boats. Mr. Stevens replied there is a car top boat launch at Marina Beach. Mr. Stevens said the facility is not used very often however, because the type of boat that would be off-loaded from a car is too small for Puget Sound boating. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO ADOPT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE SUBJECT APPLICATION. MOTION CARRIED with Councilmember Jaech abstaining from voting, as she was not in the room at the time of the discussion. CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINERRECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED 5-LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION AT 18208 - 18218 76TH AVE. W. (APPELLANT: WILLIAM AND n }�- PAMELA HAROLD, ET AL: APPLICANT: THOMAS BELT FILE NOS. AP-25-90/P-2-90); AND D HEARING ON REVISED APPLICATION REGARDING PROPOSED 4-LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION AT 18208 - 1� i 18218 76TH AVE. W. (APPLICANT: THOMAS BELT/FILE NO. [r2-90) Jeff Wilson, Planning Manager, stated the Council has two packets before them; one which is a continuation of the hearing on November 4, 1991; and the other, a hearing on the revised application that was submitted by the applicant at the November 4, 1991, which is a revision of the proposal from a 5-lot PRD plat to a 4-lot PRD plat. Mr. Wilson stated Staff has reviewed the proposal and recommended the Council adopt Motion #2, which had been drafted by the City Attorney. The Council had no questions for Mr. Wilson, and therefore, Mayor Naughten opened the hearing up to the public. Councilmember Jaech disclosed she is a Trust Administrator, and Mr. Bob Tjossem, attorney and representative for the applicant, is involved in a particular account Councilmember Jaech is currently working on. City Attorney Scott Snyder noted Councilmember Jaech revealed this information at the previous hearing, and no conflict exists which would preclude her from the discussion at hand. Bob Tjossem, 1313 Market Street, Kirkland, attorney and representative for the applicant, stated the applicant is asking that the Council adopt Motion #1, with the amendments Mr. Tjossem sent with his letter of November 15, 1991, not Motion #2 which Staff has recommended. Mr. Tjossem reviewed the changes in the PRD, as was discussed at the November 4, 1991 Council Meeting. Mr. Tjossem said a lesser impact occurs with the 4-lot PRD as did with the 5-lot PRD. Mr. Tjossem said Mr. Dick Meyers is present, and noted he is the wetlands expert and mitigation specialist. Mr. Tjossem stated the initial determination was roughly that the easterly 1/3 of the site was not wetlands, but the westerly 2/3 of the site was wetlands. Mr. Tjossem said this information was presented to the Council in August of 1991. Mr. Tjossem said Mr. Meyers has done enough work to indicate the houses on lots 2 and 3 would intrude into the wetlands and feels since Mr. Meyers has already disclosed this, there is no need to spend additional funds to make a refined drawing if the Council says they won't allow any intrusion into the wetlands. Mr. Tjossem stated the applicant has agreed to perform the delineation, but the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 November 19, 1991 purpose, as Mr. Tjossem sees it, is to determine the extent of the intrusion, and then mitigate. Mr. Tjossem said at that point, there was a question as to can you mitigate on just lots 2 and 3, or should the whole lot be considered for mitigation. Mr. Tjossem said Mr. Meyers's proposal is to mitigate only the property that is wet, by creating wetlands, both on portions of lot 3 and lot 4, with the rest of the mitigating being an enhancement of what the Applicant is proposing to dedicate into open space. Mr. Tjossem said his Applicant was concerned with Motion #1, as it reads that mitigation could only take place on the particular lot instead of being able to mitigate different areas of the site as needed. Dick Meyers, 506 2nd Ave., Seattle, Mitigation Specialist, stated the mitigation is designed to enhance the habitat value of the wetlands on the site at present. Mr. Meyers said the mitigation would consist of creation of wetlands in the southern portion of lots 3 and 4, and the other components of the mitigation would be enhancement of some of the wetlands areas that currently have stands of alders which are declining in health. Mr. Tjossem stated he prepared an amendment to paragraph six of Motion #1, which was included in the letter of November 15, 1991 to the Council. Mr. Tjossem said the amendment is similar to what the City Attorney drafted, with an exception, whch Mr. Tjossem read from his prepared revised Motion. Mr. Tjossem said the amendment essentially addresses that the mitigation would occur within the plat, and not within a specific plat. City Attorney Scott Snyder agreed with Mr. Tjossem's amendment, and commented that the language .such lot" be replaced with "an affected lot", which would conform to Mr. Tjossem's amendment. Mr. Snyder also suggested deleting the last sentence of Mr. Tjossem's amendment, and Mr. Tjossem said this would be agreeable. Councilmember Palmer addressed Motion #1 and asked if the mitigation area on lots 3 and 4 that might be needed, should be designated as open space, and Mr. Tjossem replied a restrictive covenant could be adopted which would permanently restrict that area as a wetland. Mr. Tjossem distributed Exhibit 1 to the minute taker which contained the revised site plan for the preliminary plat. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified to the Council that this is a preliminary plat, which would come back for final approval. Mr. Snyder said a procedure should be established from Staff on procedures for evaluation. Mr. Snyder suggested Staff utilize the SEPA process. Dianne Azar, 8202 Talbot Road, opposes the development and stated in her opinion, there exists no adequate wetland delineation. Ms. Azar commented on the stream conditions, and voiced her concern over this issue. As a procedural matter, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AND REOPEN IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 MINUTES. Marilyn Adams, 7310 Soundview Drive, said she understands the applicant has requested preliminary plat approval prior to the completed delineation. Ms. Adams feel the wetlands delineation should come before the preliminary plat is approved. Ms. Adams inquired who would see to it that after all the construction and mitigation is completed, that the lands will continue to be protected from inappropriate use. Sam Felton, 8415 Talbot Road, stated his professional career in recent years has been devoted to the preservation of hatchery runs, and Mr. Felton questioned the 50 foot easement for the wetlands from the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14 November 19, 1991 stream. Mr. Felton said he doesn't see how it is possible to place a foundation in an area where a natural stream exists, and not impact the wetlands. Mr. Felton stated he opposes the project on that basis. Robin Hurst, 8415 Talbot Road, said her background includes landscape architecture. Mr. Hurst stated she is opposed to the project due to the fact that the property has a 13% slope which is quite steep for construction, as well as the wetlands issue. Ms. Hurst said there is a number of streams on the subject property and feels if building takes place, erosion into the stream would result. Ms. Hurst feels the public would be best served by no development on the site. Bob Tjossem, attorney and representative to the applicant asked Mr. Dick Meyers to comment on how building can take place without impacting the wetlands. Mr. Meyers said concerning the foundation, a curtain drain would be placed around the foundation to re-route the seep water so the water from the seep is never denied from the wetland. Mr. Meyers said this is a common practice and is used by several geotechnical firms and engineers. Mr. Tjossem in closing, stated the property consists of a 2.43 acre site, and Mr. Tjossem's applicant is only placing 4 lots on that site. Mr. Tjossem feels his applicant has addressed all of the concerns that the public has expressed. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Dwyer asked Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor, if he agreed with Mr. Snyder in that the SEPA process should be utilized, ,and Mr. Wilson replied affirmatively. Councilmember Palmer agreed that the SEPA process be utilized, as it is his feeling that would give the highest degree of control. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, TO ADOPT OPTION NUMBER ONE, EXCLUDING THE: FULL SENTENCE AT THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH AND WITH THE GRAMMATICAL CHANGES RE.FERENCED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH REGARDS TO IDENTIFICATION AS 'THE LOT" OR "LOTS" AND TAKING OUT THE TERM "SUCH LOTS" AND WITH AN ADDITION THAT WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO THE COUNCIL, IT WILL REFLECT THAT STAFF WILL BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE SEPA PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF THE WETLANDS MITIGATION. Under discussion, Mr. Snyder said the Staff will be utilizing the general format of the SEPA process realizing in this case a Staff decision would come back in the form of a recommendation to Council as final resolution. Mr. Snyder said he is suggesting using SEPA procedures as a structure, but with the realization that SEPA would be at an end in the form of formal power. Councilmember Palmer asked City Attorney to address what could happen on the site if this motion passes with regards to preliminary approval versus final approval, and what can happen before the delineation is completed. Mr. Snyder said phasing would be important and reiterated that if the Council approved the motion, detailed findings of fact would still come back to the Council. Mr. Snyder said he is assuming the mitigation issues would be resolved before any work commences on site, including clearing. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 15 November 19, 1991 COUNCIL It was the consensus of the Council to continue the balance of the agenda, which is the Budget Discussion, to Saturday, November 23,1991. Council President Wilson recommended the Council eliminate the Waterfront Study on the November 26th agenda and continue it after the new year. No objections were noted from the Council. W Council President Wilson also recommended eliminating the two hearings on December 3rd, and continuing them some time after the new year, in order to concentrate on the budget. No objections were noted from the Council. Councilmember Dwyer said the spirit of cooperation was very good at the Sno-Com meeting between Sno- �fkc, Com and Medic 7. Councilmember Dwyer said final budgets were to be passed for both Sno-Com and Medic 7, however, both budgets were pulled off, in order to review them in light of the what has happened. Councilmember Jaech noted that Councilmember Palmer has taken her place as Chair of the Public Safety Committee. ►) Councilmember Palmer said he had an inquiry from a Weeblos leader who had contacted the City to find out if there were any community jobs scouts could do in order to earn their citizenship badges. Councilmember Palmer indicated a Staff member said no such jobs were available, and Councilmember Palmer felt some volunteer work is available which would help them out and asked Staff to look into this. Councilmember Palmer inquired about the Council's Expense Policy that the Finance Committee has been ,,� working on. It was noted that the Council Assistant has completed typing the policy, at the direction of Y ° Councilmember Dwyer, and will include a copy in the Council packet on November 22, 1991. Councilmember Palmer noted the motion failed for passage of the resolution concerning the annexation, 1py however, he would still like to survey the citizens of Edmonds in order to get their feeling on the annexation Councilmember Nordquist said mention was made a few weeks ago about the UnoCal site and the soil remediation project. Councilmember Nordquist said he forwarded the Council request to the Director of the Environmental Health Division, and distributed a copy of his response to the Council. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO NOVEMBER 26, APPROVAL THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THESE MINUTES IS ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. R ONDA J. MARCH, CITY CLERK LA N EN, MAYO EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 16 November 19, 1991 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 19, 1991 7:00 P.M. - PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION TO ED SCOTT AND RECEPTION HONORING HIS 100TH BIRTHDAY CALL TO ORDER AT 7:15 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 1991 AND NOVEMBER 12, 1991 (C) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE FROM LEE MARKS ($192.97) AND PATRICIA A. MOREHOUSE (AMOUNT UNKNOWN) (D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR THE MASTER PLAN FOR SOUTHWEST COUNTY PARK ($10,000.00) (E) PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 727 APPROVING THE HOUSEKEEPING REVISIONS TO THE WASHINGTON CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY (F) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY ASSOCIATED SAND & GRAVEL ON THE SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT PAVING PROJECT AND SETTING THE 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (G) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR TEN -FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM NICK STEMM AND NANCY DENSON AT 19017 SOUNDVIEW PLACE (H)' ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR TEN -FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM GOGERT & SONS, INC. AT 16406 75TH PL. W. (I) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR FIVE-FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM PHILIP ZEVENBERGEN AT 9121 BOWDOIN WAY (J) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR TEN -FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM P & L ENTERPRISES AT 7632 230TH ST. SW (K) APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. FOR MAPPING OF SR 99 FOR 1992 WATER PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ($1,600.00) (L) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT WITH ESCA (M) AUTHORIZAOUND SQUALITY EIMENT R TBIG UTOY A($2SE F464.00)ROM D EQUIPMENTTFROM AND INDUSTRIES 2. AUDIENCE 3. FINAL REPORT BY ARTS COMMISSION ON EDMONDS COLLECTION PROJECT TO (10 MINUTES) HEKINAN SISTER CITY 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON 1992 BUDGET (10 MINUTES) 5. HEARING ON NORMA BEACH/PICNIC POINT AREA ANNEXATION (20 MINUTES) 6. HEARING ON APPROVAL OF HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A (15 MINUTES) SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BOAT LAUNCHER AND RELATED FACILITIES AT THE PORT OF EDMONDS, 336 ADMIRAL WAY (APPLICANT: PORT OF EDMONDS / FILE NO. SM-1-91) 7. CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION (15 MINUTES) REGARDING PROPOSED 5-LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION AT 18208 - 18218 76TH AVE. W. (APPELLANT: WILLIAM AND PAMELA HAROLD, ET AL; APPLICANT: THOMAS BELT FILE NOS. AP-25-90/P-2-90); AND HEARING ON REVISED APPLICATION REGARDING PROPOSED 4-LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION (25 MINUTES) AT 18208 - 18218 76TH AVE. W. (APPLICANT: THOMAS BELT / FILE NO. P-2-90) 8. MAYOR 9. COUNCIL 10. WORK SESSION ON 1992 BUDGET - REVIEW COMMUNITY SERVICES iDEPARTMENT BUDGET (70 MINUTES) A. FIRE DEPARTMENT B. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT C. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE