No preview available
19801216 City Council Minutes17U December 9, 1980 - continued • SECOND..HEARING ON PLANNING, BUILDING, -AND PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS AND FEES The hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Councilman Gould s-aid this matter would be considered as part of the budget. This hearing had been scheduled just to take additional input but there was nobody present who wished to speak. DISCUSSION ON USE OF CITIZEN COMMITTEES Councilman Gould said he had talked with Lloyd Ostrom about having some -of the Concerned Citizens Council work on some of the projects on the Planning Advisory Board list. There was no further discussion at this time. There was no other business to come -before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 10:25 p.m. U IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Uty Clerk December 16, 1980 The regular meeting of the.Edmonds..City Council was called -to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mayor.Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the.Edmonds Civic Center.. .All present joined in.the flag salute. PRESENT Har.ve Harrison, Mayor Jo -Anne Jaech Bill Kasper Paul Christensen, Student Rep. Katherine Allen John Nordquist Ray Gould Larry Naughten Mary Goetz CONSENT AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director Jim Adams, City Engineer Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Manager Art Housler, Finance Director Gary McComas, Fire Marshal Dan Prinz, Assistant Police Chief Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED; SECONDED BY.000NCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Theapproved items on'the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of December 9, 1980. MAYOR Mayor Harrison asked for confirmation of his.appointments to the Planning Advisory Board. COUN- CILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AS FOLLOWS:. POSITION 1, RAY SITTAUER, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1982; POSITION 2, FRED ROSS, TERM TO.EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1982; POSITION 3, JOHN McGIBBON, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1983; POSITION 4, FLOYD E. SMITH, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31,1983; POSITION 5, KEN MATTSON, TERM. TO' EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1984; POSIT -ION '6,`LAURk HALL, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1984; POSITION 7, DAVE LARSON, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1985; AND ALTERNATE, JOHN HODGIN, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1985. Councilman Gould noted that there were some questions regarding the use of the alternate member and whether that person automatically would move to a permanent position when one was vacated. Mayor Harrison understood that the alternate would serve when someone else stepped 'down because.of a conflict'of'interest. Councilman Kasper observed that because the role.of Planning Advisory Board will be different from that of the Planning Commission, it would be hard to just step in occasionally. He thought there should be some discussion with the Planning Staff regarding this. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that the ordinance indicates the alternate will fill in when'a member disqualifies himself because of a conflict of interest. Further, he said the alternate would automatically ascend to a.permanent position on the Board,'and the -person would not.serve if there were merely a lack of a quorum unless it was because one of the members excused himself because of conflict of interest. He said there is nothing to prohibit the alternate from attending every meeting -but he would have no vote. Councilman Gould said it would be more useful if the alternate were to fill in whenever anyone .was absent, and he would like to have this discussed by the Council. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO PLACE ON THE JANUARY .13, 1981-COUNCIL AGENDA'A DISCUSSION OF THE ROLE OF THE -ALTERNATE MEMBER ON THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL Councilman Nordqui.st.noted that the City.Council had held budget work meetings on December 6 and December 13, 1980,,and as Council'President he had taken notes and prepared written minutes which had been provided to the Council. He requested that those minutes be made a part of the permanent C� 1 • 1 L 0 Special Council Budget Hearing Public Meeting December 13, 1980 Held in City Council Chambers - 8:00 A.M. Present Council Persons: Katherine Allen Jo -Anne Jaech Mary Goetz Ray Gould Larry Naughten Bill Kasper John Nordquist, Mayor Pro Tem Staff: Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Art Housler, Finance Director Jim Murphy, City Attorney Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Public in Attendance Memorandum from Mayor Pro Tem was read stating a check for $95,000 was re- ceived from Snohomish County as a property tax refund. This check is normally received in January, but hereafter will be issued in December of each year. This amount was to be considered in this budget deliberation. A large contingency of City employees was in attendance. The group titled them- selves "The Non -Represented City of Edmonds Employees". The spokesman for the group was Jim Roberts, who in turn introduced the following speakers - JoAm Fischer, Jerry Saterlie and Margaret Hill. A petition was presented asking for "equality in.the cost -of -living increases for all City employees". After Council discussion a motion was made by John Nordquist. Motion: To extend to the non -represented employees the 13.56% L cost -of -living raise and to include merit increase re- serve for the same in the budget. Second by Jo -Anne Jaech. Motion carried. Motion: That the administration give a report to the City Council in 30 days as to how the merit increases are being adminis- tered to the non -represented employees and recommendations as to how the merit program can be a more effective part of the salary program. Motion by Bill Kasper. Second by Mary Goetz. Motion carried. Special Council Budget Hearing December 13, 1980 Page 2. Natalie Shippen gave a presentation on the right-of-way problems on the south side of SR 524 between Puget Lane and Olympic Avenue. After Council discussion a motion was made. Motion: That the fence should be located on the right-of-way line and the rockery should abut the fence (street side) (where rockery has been selected). Motion by Bill Kasper. Second by John Nordquist. Motion carried. Motion: That the utility service be placed on the north side of the street in the area discussed. Motion by Katie Allen. Second by Mary Goetz. Motion carried. Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney, made a presentation as to the current status of the Municipal Court. Much is undecided at this point but the consensus was that the narrative in the budget should contain some explanation as to the expendi- ture of funds for the auditor's benefit. Motion: A statement be placed in the narrative of the Municipal Court " that all the costs cannot be determined because it is not known at the time of budgeting where they will be spent. Motion by Second by Katie Allen. Motion carried. Consensus was reached on the following items: qx-" 1. To add $7,000 to underground wiring. 2. To buy paint striper. 3. To raise "fees" projected revenue to $105,000. 4. Building and Engineering Inspector to show as one on organiza- tional chart. Motion: To remove request for log cabin in Yost Park and 5th and Bell Park project from Parks budget and transfer the $22,500 to the General Fund. Motion by Bill Kasper. Second by John Nordquist. Motion carried. Special Council Budget Hearing December 13, 1980 Page 3. Copious notes as to specific dollar amount changes as well as totals were made by the Finance Director and those additions or corrections will be transmitted to the Council. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 P.M., minus two Council people and budget still out of balance by $46,000. Respectfully submitted. JN/db L. Special Council Budget Hearing Public Meeting December 2, 1980 Held in City Council Chambers - 8:30 A.M. Present Council Persons: Katherine Allen Ray Gould Jo -Anne Jaech John Nordquist, Mayor Pro-Tem Mary Goetz Staff: Art Housler, Finance Director Charles G. Dibble, M.A.A. Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jim Murphy, City Attorney Richard Thorpe, Judge Public in Attendance The session opened with a presentation by the City Attorneys - Jim Murphy and Wayne Tanaka, together with Judge Dick Thorpe - regarding new costs created by the need for jury trials. The suggestion was made that we return to the District Court system. (Suggestion that they place a judge in our court as an annex.) The consensus was to add $30,000 to the court on page 24 of the 1981 Budget and add $20,000 to the Contingency Fund. The City Council used a memo from Charlie Dibble to the City Council dated No- vember 21, 1980 as its guideline for review (see attached exhibit of 1981 budget items still to be decided.) Actions or reactions: Page 2: Public Works ($34,000) in question Item 6 - 10. Concensus was to review later. Page 3: Item 18 - Concensus to round off at $25,000 - that this sum was to be used for specific projects which are to be desig- nated by a list. The money was not to be used as a lump -sum wage. Some discussion regarding Items 30 and 34. Concensus was to discuss this later. Page 4: Page four was accepted except for Item 10. The concensus was that Item 10 be added back into the Contingency Fund. Discussion was held on the Budget document. Meeting adjourned at 12:20 P.M. JN/db ✓November 21, 1980 TO: City Council Members FROM: Charles G. Dibble Mayor's Administrative Assistant RE: LIST OF 1981 BUDGET ITEMS CONSIDERED IN COUNCIL WORK MEETINGS The Council has held three budget work meetings plus a Saturday morning meeting on organization which necessarily included dis- cussion of budget matters. The Council asked me to list the budget items considered during these meetings. The attached list sets forth the items in our notes and includes the following: Revenue increases Revenue decreases Expenditure increases Expenditure decreases The changes balance, with "Sale of Land" in the "Revenue Increases" column being the variable. It is my recollection that the Council did not vote on any of these matters. They were proposed, discussed, considered. After the November 25 public hearing on the budget, the Council will have two additional meetings at which to vote on changes in the pre- liminary budget - December 2 and December 9. On December 9, the Council should give final instructions to the City Attorney to pre- pare the budget ordinance for the December 16 agenda. CGD/js Attachment cc: Mayor Harve H. Harrison Department Heads SUMMARY OF COUNCIL'S BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS \a - Increase beginning cash balance which includes a reduction in Public Works expenditures of $24,000 and upward revision of $10,000 in estimated carryover $34,000 Item No. Revenue Increases: 1. Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, underbudgeted 2. Liquor Excise Tax, underbudgeted 3. Parking Lot Meter Revenue, underbudgeted A. Fines & Forfeitures, underbudgeted 5. Interest Earnings, underbudgeted 6. Building Permits 7. Engineering Plans/Services 8. Zoning/Subdivision 9. Plat Inspection/Plan Check 10. S.E.P.A. Review --- Total Fee & Permit Increase 11. Business Licenses 12. Sale of Land Total Revenue Increase Revenue Decreases: 13. Utility Tax Revenue, overbudgeted 14. Woodway Fire Protection, recalculated Total Net Revenue Increase $10,000 2,000 3,000 10,000 10,000 $46,200 --- - —. 14,895 13,000 - 2,200 300 �- 76,595 15,000 r 29,844 ' $156,439 ($60,000) 4,450 $64,450 $125,939 Q . r, SUMMARY OF COUNCIL'S BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS, CONT. Item NO -Expenditure Increases: 15. Council, Newsletter - Circulation Increased by 3,000 16. Office of Mayor, Mayor's Administrative Assistant Salary & Benefits (36,000 + 20%) 17. Police, Vehicle Maintenance & Operation (omitted) 18. Planning, Planning Consultant Contract Planning, Benefits for Recreational Supervisor (omitted) 20 Engineering, Salary Engineer & Inspector 21: Benefits Engineer & Inspector • Salary Adjustment for Employees (.56%) 23• Benefit Adjustment for Employees (.56%) / 24• Salary - Merit for Unrepresented Employees (2%) 25. Benefit - Merit for Unrepresented Employees (2°C') Total Expenditure Increase Expenditure Decreases: 26• Building, Structural Plan Check - To be done In-house 27. Public Works Administration, Word Processor 28• Engineering, Equipment Repair -'> 29• Engineering, Combine Engineer & Building Inspector 30. Engineering, Vehicle Replacement 31. Salary Reduction for Unrepresented Employees (3.56°0) 32• Benefit Reduction for Unrepresented Employees (3.569.") Total Expenditure Decrease Total Net Expenditures Increase t80 -�- $19,5 r` 42,200 13 000 24,960- 2,300 40,054 8,862 15,595 2,185 18,949 - 2,670 ($ 1,500) (10,000) (800) (10,000) (4,137) (33,168) (4,681) $190,275 ($64,286) $125,989 GENERAL FUND DECREASES IN EXPENDITURES Item # Page # Description Amount ' (1) 12 Executive Travel $ 500 (2) 12 Executive Miscellaneous 500 (3) 14 Personnel Miscellaneous 500 (4) 16 Education & Training 11000 (5) 24 Judicial Travel 200 (6) 24 Judicial Machinery & Equipment 200 (7) 28 Election Services 500 (8) 34 Data Processing Overtime 500 (9) 34 Data Processing Miscellaneous 200 (10) 34 Interfund Transfer to Council Contingency Fund (see page 8 also) 10,000 - + (11) 34 Interfund Transfer to Street Fund (see page 106 also) 3,000 (12) 34 Miscellaneous Expenditures Printing & Binding 200 _�— (13) 50 Police Security Salaries 4,364 (14) 50 Police Parking Salaries 1,611 (15) 78 Building Miscellaneous 200 (16) 84 Recreational Services Salaries 3,600 (17) 102 Grounds Maintenance Salaries 2,000 (18) 102 Grounds Maintenance Benefits 240 (19) 72 Planning Professional Services, Hearing Examiner 3,000 Total $ 2,315 80 C>,%,, • . 171 December 16, 1980'-'continued 1 1 1 records. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST THEN MOVED, SECONDED.BY.000NCILWOMAN ALLEN THAT THE MINUTES HE HAD PREPARED OF THE DECEMBER 6 AND DECEMBER 13, 1980 BUDGET WORK MEETINGS BE ENTERED INTO THE PERMANENT MINUTE BOOK OF THE CITY. MOTION CARRIED. Student. Representative Paul Christensen noted that he had attended the December 13-meeting and the minutes did not reflect that. Councilman Nordquist had attended the Lynnwood and..Mount-.lake.-Terrace City Council meetings at which the Everett filtration plant was discussed and both cities had indicated they would participate. Mr. Hulbert of the PUD had indicated at those meetings last.even ing that there was only a week in which to put it together.because PUD is applying for..:a license for the dam, and if it is not done within that week it will have.to'be put off another year. 'Councilman Nordquist was concerned that Edmonds was the only entity which had not entered into this, and he saw no correlation between the need for the filtration plant and the City's water/sewer rate study. He asked fora commitment now so the Mayor could sign the agreement with the Alderwood Water District, after which PUD could apply for the license .for the 'dam and pay its 12 million dollars for the Everett filtration plant. Councilman Gould.clarified'the request, saying.they were asking the City of Edmonds to extend the existing water contract.with the Al.derwood Water District until.the year 2010, and by doing that, the District would.be able.to show the City of.Edmonds as long-term customers. That would mean the water rates would go up 14-16% in order 'for.the City to pay its share of the filtration plant, and Councilman Gould had some questions as to whether the filtration plant:really was needed. Paul Christensen said he did not know how much faith they could put,.in the PUD cost estimates. He thought Edmonds should enter into the agreementbut he also thought.PUD should work harder on the energy portion of the project. Councilman Gould. asked what the markup was on the water Alderwood.gets from Everett and sells to Edmonds. Les Erickson, Manager of the.Alderwood Water District, responded that there is no markup, only maintenance -and operation costs.. He then discussed in more detail the costs to the cities. Councilman Gould told him that he was looking for a way to reduce the cost of water for the citizens of Edmonds,`and.to.approve this would increase the water rate. Mr. Erickson noted that between 1983-84 the rate.would drop l 1/2¢ because of paid off bonded indebtedness. Mayor Harrison was asked for his opinion, and he.recommended that the City agree.to participate.in the filtration program. Councilman Naughten said the net result of this must be recognized when the City's other rates are seta COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT BASED ON THE NEED FOR QUALITY OF WATER IN THE CITY, AND NOT WANTING TO RAISE THE RATES ANY HIGHER THAN THEY HAVE TO, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT EXTENDING IT TO THE YEAR.2010. A.ROLL CALL VOTE WAS.TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS. NORDQUIST, ALLEN, NAUGHTEN, AND GOETZ VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, KASPER, AND GOULD VOTING NO. THE,MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gould said his reasons for voting against the motion were that somebody has to stand up and say enough is enough, and secondly, when -he makes a decision like this he wants the best information possible on which to base the decision, and he did not have that, as the rate study has not been completed nor.has:theFred Hutchinson Center research project regarding the effects of asbestos.in the water. Paul Christensen said he thought it imperative that the citizens be made aware that the rates will be going up before it actually happens. Councilman Kasper observed that some of the major mistakes the Council has made were made because they were done hastily. Councilwoman Jaech said something like this has to have been in the mill for a long time, and she felt the Council owed the citizens a public hearing on it. She felt it was being rushed through the -Council. Councilwoman Allen pointed out that Councilman Nordquist has made continuing reports from the Health District on this subject and it also has been in the newspapers -- that it was not new information --and they actually have been asking the City for an answer for a long time. Councilman Nordquist noted that the rate increase will not be reflected in the customers' bills until 1981 or 1982, and Bruce Jones, Deputy City Attorney for the City of Everett, said it is scheduled that payment will start in January 1982. Councilman Naughten reported that Mayor.Harrison and he had attended the meeting in Atlanta, and the feeling is that the new administration will to the cities than.they have been given in the past. National League of Cities give more control and responsibility • Regarding the newsletter, Councilman Naughten complimented the editor and the Public Works Director for the detailed analysis and water/sewer fact sheet which appeared in the current issue. Councilwoman Goetz said she .had been requested to have Item 10 on the agenda moved up because there were members of the.College Place PTA in the audience for that item. COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO MOVE ITEM 10 (REVIEW OF POSSIBLE FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON 76TH NEAR COLLEGE PLACE ELEMENTARY) TO FOLLOW ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Allen noted that there was a request from the Finance Director to authorize a transfer of funds to pay the printing cost of 150 copies of.the.Community Development Code and 50 copies of the City Code. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN., TO PASS RESOLUTION 481, AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF $2400 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND 119 TO THE GENERAL FUND 001, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 710, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING THE COST.OF PRINTING 150 COPIES OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.CODE AND 50 COPIES OF THE CITY CODE. . MOT,ION CARRIED. PRESENTATION OF SCHEMATIC DESIGNS.FOR ANDERSON CENTER LIBRARY A model and the schematics were displayed. Parks & Recreation Director Jim Jessel said the intent. was to'start construction .in the summer of 1981, and,. construction would take approximately one year. He was seeking approval of the schematic designs this evening. Cliff Jackson of Arai/Jackson Architects & Designers discussed the proposed development. His presentation covered program directives, location, physical characteristics of the site, zoning, cost estimate', and design -and construction schedule. He described the parking layout, noting that an extensive analysis of the parking had been done. He was questioned about the noise of the heat pump, and he said they were working on finding the. best solution for that problem. Mayor.Harrison said he was not sure the library needed - a conference center, and Mr. Jackson said that is part and parcel of the basic,) ibrary program, one of the primary functions being for story telling. He had.been advised that in Edmonds there are up to 50 children at a time who -use the facility. Councilman Gould said that really should be a multi- purpose meeting room and not thought of as strictly for the library, but it should be a revenue 17-2 December 16, 1980. �,,continued • producing part of the library. He also suggested that the Council may want to have City Council meetings there, and then possibly the Police might be able to use the existing Council Chambers, and as a result a public safety building may not be needed. Mr. Jackson described the expansion capa- bilities of the project and then a short recess was announced so everyone could examine the model. and drawings more closely. Following the recess, COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE SCHEMATIC DESIGNS FOR THE ANDERSON CENTER LIBRARY, THE PLANS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. REVIEW OF POSSIBLE FUTURE TRAFFIC.SIGNAL ON 76TH NEAR COLLEGE -PLACE ELEMENTARY City Engineer Jim Adams said they had met 'with representatives of the school, PTA, and Lynnwood Engineering Division. The school actually is in the City of Lynnwood but most of the children affected are from the City of Edmonds. He noted that 76th is'a straight road and people naturally drive fast on it, and it had been agreed that the major problem was the speed of the vehicles. Following the discussion, the -following -recommendations were made: (1) Abandon the existing cross- walk and establish a new location about 50' south to avoid pedestrian/vehicle conflict from the school driveway (the students currently were walking in the path of the exiting school buses); (2) Paint the word "SCHOOL" with white paint on the pavement; (3) Install advanced warning sign "SCHOOL CROSSWALK - STOP WHEN OCCUPIED"; and (4) Insure crosswalk.protection by installing an overhead "CROSSWALK" sign with two yellow lights that will flash only when activated by a pushbutton control. When the lights flash, the vehicles will stop and the pedestrian can cross safely. Public Works Director Fred Herzberg said they had obtained a verbal agreement from the Lynnwood City.Engineer to share in the $5,000 estimated cost. Federal Funding (80%) is available for this type of project and he said this was a fairly routine kind.of.thing that should get the federal funding. Pat Eldridge from the College Place Elementary School said they have a system of a flashing light now but it does not always work and .the cars still speed through the.area. She noted that when • driving north on 76th drivers think they are past the school zone when they pass the Junior High School and they do not realize there are two schools together. She felt a crosswalk with an acti- vating button would be useful whenever they have school functions instead of just having the flashing lights at predetermined times. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE AS PROPOSED BY THE STAFF. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST SECONDED THE MOTION, WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE CITY OF EDMONDS TAKE THE LEAD POSITION IN ACQUIRING THE FEDERAL FUNDS. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF AREA'BETWEEN 227TH PL. S.W. AND 228TH ST. S.W., AND•BETWEEN 80TH AVE. W. AND CITY LIMITS City Clerk Irene Varney Moran -reported that the Boundary Review Board had waived jurisdiction of this proposed -annexation -at their December 9, 1980 meeting. The proposed annexation ordinance was now provided. The hearing was opened. Vernon -Elder, the property owner in the annexation area who had carried the petition, was present and spoke briefly. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed.. COUNCILMAN.NORDQUIST MOVED,,SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD,-TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2185, ANNEXING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO -THE CITY OF EDMONDS PURSUANT TO THE PETITION METHOD AND FIXING THE EFFECTIVE ANNEXATION DATE AS DECEMBER 22, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON APPEAL.FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED REZONE FROM RS-20 TO OS AT -APPROXIMATELY 73011MEADOWDALE BEACH RD. (R-4-80) This proposed rezone had been heard by the Planning Commission November 12, 1980, and minutes of that hearing were provided the Council. The Planning Division, Public Works Department, and Parks and Recreation Department had all recommended denial of the proposal and, following a lengthy dis- cussion, the Planning Commission voted .to -deny. Their findings of -fact were provided to the Council. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block showed slides of the property and located it'on-a site map. Surrounding uses are RS-20. The neighboring property owners applied for the OS zoning on this property in order- to retain it as an undeveloped lot in the City and .they indicated it met all of • the OS criteria as stated in the Zoning Code. Ms. Block did not agree and she reviewed the Zoning Code criteria in relation to this property. She said it is not a forest or wildlife preserve, it is not agricultural land, it is not heavily wooded., it is not.well suited for a park (as analyzed and reflected in.a memorandum from the Parks & Recreation Director); it is -not a recreation area, it would not be appropriate for a.riding academy, and -it is.not part of a City watershed. She felt the only possible use would be for a park and that was not recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director. She noted that the'University tract is near this site and it has 120 acres of open space. She also noted that if this site were retained as an OS lot.it would be primarily for use by one neighborhood, and if it were developed according to the RS-.20 zoning there would be a large part of the site that would not be developed with buildings. She said the lot has no particular significance environmentally. It is not a ravine or a very steep slope, and it is not the site of a lake, stream, or .other body of.water. Ms. Block said it is difficult to.recommend against open space, but it -did not appear to the Planning Division that this was a site that should be retained any more than a number of other sites in the'City, and it did not appear the uses to which it would be put would be of particular value to the community. She recommended denial of the.proposal. This property had been acquired as an LID foreclosure. The hearing was opened. Bill Johnson, 704 Maple St., was the appellant. He said -he owns property abutting this property, and there were approximately six neighboring property owners.who proposed that this be rezoned to OS. He felt this would establish an area in their neighborhood of open space, which he thought was consistent with the way subdivisions are platted -as subdivisions and PRDs are encouraged to include open space. He said the.properties his neighbors and he own were developed at least 15 years ago, at which time there were no considerations for open space, and he felt there would be a benefit to the community as a whole, and especially to those residents of the Meadowdale area as this property is situated along the prettiest -part of Meadowdale Beach..Rd., a wandering road which encourages one to look at the surrounding.area. He felt this was a gateway to the City and should -be attractive. He thought the Planning Commission did not have in its hands -an adequate study by the City Staff • �7 December.16, 1980 - continued 1 L 11 when it heard this request, and that -its legal scope is very narrow, and that itthereforerecommended the proposal not be approved; He.referred to the Planning.,Commission minutes -and said the.motion ,carried dial not reflect some of the personal comments of the members. He said the proponents proposed only passive use o.f:the property, but the Planning.Commission considered it only as a park, and the Engineering and Parks and Recreation Departments did .the .same. He felt that.was tecause of the inadequacy of the information provided to the Planning Commission. He referred .to excerpts of the Code which he had submitted.to the Council which he.thought included natural areas and open space, and he said he thought open:space areas are particularly appropriate in residential areas. He felt. the property would be of.greater value as open space than if it were sold by the City. Another purpose he felt would be served would be that wildlife of the area --mostly birds of the forest-- would stay, because when :residential development- takes place.they do not stay. He read a letter from the Pilchuck Audubon'Society in support of his :proposal (which was later submitted to the Clerk and marked Exhibit 1). Mr. Johnson said the petitioners felt this property would have only negligible value for sale as a building site, -.and he referred..to the Planning Commission minutes wherein Associate Planner.Duane Bowman stated:the site would be adequate for only one building site.. . Mr. Johnson submitted an extract from a soils.report on -the Meadowmere development 150' away in Lynnwood. This extract from the Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc. (marked'Exhibit 2) discussed the wetness of the area.. Mr. Johnson also 'identif-ied some nearby lots which sold for $14,000 and $17-,000 two years -ago which he.said have good views but poor soil conditions. He read'a letter from John Taylor of Taylor Custom Homes who had•analyzed the buildability of this lot at Mr. Johnson's request. The letter indicated the lot to be buildable but with great, difficulty and considerable expense because of the amount of water on the site and the nonbea.ring soil conditions. He estimated the extra development cost for a residential building site to be $12,000. (This letter was submitted to the Clerk and marked Exhibit ,3.) Mr. Johnson stated that if the property were rezoned there .would not be the problems associated with the use of a park as stated in the original staff review. He said residents of the area have never complained of anyone using or being on the.property. He said it is very impenetrable from the road because of'a drainage ditch with water and.the brush. He said solutions other than the rezone to OS -were not acceptable. He noted that Mr. Bowman had suggested that the neighbors buy the property and make -it OS, but if the City were to put it on the market the value would be based on residential value and it would be unfair to expect them to'buy it for OS and pay the residential price. He felt that if it were not zoned OS and the City kept it. -with the intent to keep it for open space, that could change some place down the line, and he wanted the assurance of the zoning. He described -the property as being.primar.ily alder trees, and primarily the.nature of the trees in the area, and'he said fallen trees provide food and nesting for birds (the slides shown had pictured trees fallen'or appearing ready to fall.). He said they felt some trees falling down was a healthy sign -..He finished by saying the petitioners -did not think it wrong to ask the City to rezone this to benefit them primarily and the Council. often acts for the benefit of`a neighborhood, so this would not be.inconsistent. Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Lane, speaking for the Edmonds Council `of -Concerned Citizens, said a number of them had looked at this property andthe general consensus•was that this was•a sensible proposal. He commented that`it appeared,.from.reading the Staff review and the minutes of the Planning Commission, and from other comments, that there was a question of what open space is, and he said it is room to breathe and it can be used for a scenic area or it.could be a park.. He asked the Council its definition of open space; and he felt this satisfied the OS criteria. Councilman Nordquist-responded that Councilman Gould and he had sat on an Open Space Hearing Board, and that there are certain things You protect, but he said.a person is given relief on taxation for a period of time when he.declares his. property open space. Councilman Gould said he looks at.OS zoning in broad terms as a device by which -it can be.assured areas of the City are protected from dense development,.and it gives protection of air, light, view, and sensitive areas, and room.to breathe. "Mr. Ostrom did not see any reason to get rid of property that meets the OS criteria, and he said rezoning it to OS would.not be an irrevocable act and it could always be.rezoned back to RS-20 to.sell it. He said it appeared to him that if the OS portion of the Code has..any real.meaning it had. -to be implemented, and he supported the petition. Bob Morrison, 250 Beach Pl., sai_d.he looked at this property for his•own personal purpose and it appeared to be a buildable property, but with problems. He said it appeared there only were a few involved at this time, but looking across the .street. he saw ribbons tied.on:trees.indicating trees to be cut saved.and.it appeared there would be quite an addition there: He thought those people probably also would be interested in looking at a piece of property which has been kept as open space and that it might be`a nice open.space barrier there in a few years. Dr. Charles Johnson who owns property above this property, said this site is very.wet�and he did not see it as a park, but it would be a difficult building lot. He referred to -the Meadowmere develop- ment which he said will be more dense because Lynnwood's zoning is not as strict as that of Edmonds. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Ave. W., said there was a strong difference ofopinion between Ms. Block and the residents and "semi -experts" as to the buildability of the lot, so he asked himself what would be the motivation to deny this, and it appeared to him to.be money --maybe $30,000-$40,000 in the 1981 budget --and he felt that was,a short-term way of looking at things. He said Chapter 15 of the Code calls for -open -space and.not necessarily with parks, and he thought it would be shortsighted of the Council to..deny this for money needed in the budget. Daryl Cody, 1.6742-72nd W., noted a difference in the testimony of the Staff and.the people. He said Ms. Block had reported'ther.e.was..no bog or slopes and no significant drainage through this property. He read.from the new.Community Development Code .that."no.City-owned property should be relinquished until all possible community -uses have been explored" and that "all feasible means -should be used to preserve open spaces" whith_he listed.. He said it..seemed to him that this property met those criteria. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of .the hearing was closed.: Public Works Director -Fred Herzberg was asked whether this.property had been appraised and he responded that an appraisal of $20;000:had been received two weeks previously. Ms. Block responded to some;of the statements made during this discussion. She noted that Mr. Johnson had indicated that there is December 16, 1980 - conti,nued a requirement of open space for subdivisions, but that the requirement is only made on PRDs. She said members of the Planning Staff had.walked the site this date (an allegation had been made that they had not -.been on the site). •She.noted that she had not said this is not a drainage area, but that she had said it is not a watershed. Councilwoman Allen said the City had tried to do away with small parks or.small pieces of property which people think of as small parks because they are difficult to maintain and provide liability to the City. She .noted that there had been an oppor- tunity to get some open space recently and it was turned down for these reasons. She said it appeared the liability could be,very bad on this piece of property, and that being the case, COUN- CILWOMAN ALLEN'MOVED.TO AFFIRM PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 663, DENYING THE PROPOSED REZONE. There was no second at this time, but discussion continued. Councilman Naughten said he was not against this as open space but he felt it was not timely because the Council currently was going through all of the City properties for analysis.. He did not .think this decision could be made while .they were doing that analysis. Councilman Gould observed that the neighbors want it zoned OS to protect their property and he thought he probably would do the if he lived there. He. said they .same had to look at the issue of open space and whether or not there should be open space.there, and whether it served the purpose as..far as the City is concerned. He wondered why one of the other lots there should not be open space instead of this one, and he said he was having a hard time saying that.the City should keep that property although he believed in open space. He noted that they did not get that piece of,property for the purpose of providing open space. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka noted that after January 1, under the new Code,.it could be determined to sell the property on a negotiated basis without going to bid. He said he realized the impetus of this was the fact that the property is on the list for possible sale, but the Council must remember they were considering a rezone and they must address the criteria for rezone as if it belonged to someone else instead of the City, and further, they would have to go through the same criteria to rezone it back after zoning it to OS. He noted that one of the criteria -is changed circumstances and that there may not be any within a short-term. He stressed that the prime concern should be the rezone cri- • teria and not what they wanted to do with the property. ...Councilman Gould referred to criterion 5--, the diminution of value --and said.he interpreted that as diminution of value to the City. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan says the property is RS-20, and when going through the rezone criteria he had a hard time finding it appropriate to rezone. COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN SECONDED THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. Councilman Nordquist said the Council knows how the neighbors feel and they will con- sider that when going down the list of properties considered for sale. Councilman Kasper said he felt development.is going to generate water that cannot be held on the site, and in the long run they would be spot zoning if they rezoned this. He intended voting in favor of the motion on the basis that this property should not be rezoned but possibly should be given some further considera- tion after the first of.the year. Councilman Gould suggested that possibly inithe future the property might be split, with RS-20 on the top and OS on the rest -,.or restrict it to one lot. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED. HEARING ON SHORELINES MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT -PERMIT FOR UNION OIL PARK DEVELOPMENT AT SOUTH END OF ADMIRAL.WAY (SM-3-80) Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block noted that the Shoreline Permit heard by the Planning Commission was for the development•of the whole park and the reason it came up at this time was because of the possibility.of getting some free dirt (which already was placed on the site), and a Shoreline Permit was needed to do it. The'permit is good for two years and would cover the future development plans they have for the site which the Council had been shown previously. At the present time the intent was only to do the grading on the site, but ultimately when the money is obtained this permit.would cover the additional work. A.drawing of the proposal was displayed. Ms. Block said the dirt will be mounded but.will not infringe on the sand and the intent was generally to upgrade the park but -keep the uses..the same. The Board of Adjustment had granted a Conditional Use Permit for the fill. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Bob Morrison, 250 Beach P1., said he did not see how grass could be planted on the dirt there, and • Ms. Block responded that there will be top soil. He asked if it would-be raised above the existing parking area, and he felt building this up would make more water go back into.the area where the boats are stored.. Public Works Director Fred'Herzberg said.there already are catch basins there that will carry the water to.the Sound. :No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED; IN DUE RESPECT TO MR. MORRISON AND THE LENGTHY TESTIMONY, ALONG WITH THE REPRESENTATION OF THE CONCERNED.CIT.IZENS, AND BECAUSE HE DID NOT THINK THIS THING HAD BEEN THOUGHT OUT WELL ENOUGH,.THAT ALL OF THE DIRT BE REMOVED -AT THIS -TIME.• It appeared that the motion may have been facetious, and the Council appeared to accept it as.such. There was no second to the motion. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED .BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN TO APPROVE SM-3-80. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST VOTING AO. HEARING ON'SHORELINES MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, WEST END OF DAYTON'ST. AND UNION.OIL MARSH (SM-4-80) The Council had been provided minutes of the Planning Commission hearing on this item and previously had seen a presentation of the improvement program. The hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED,.SECONDED-BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE SM-4-80. MOTION CARRIED-.,. FINAL BUDGET REVIEW AND INSTRUCTIONS TO.ATTORNEY Finance Director Art Housler provided information as to preliminary budget adjustments compiled after the previous budget work sessions. These were reviewed, and.then COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO.TRANSFER $23,500 FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUND 325 INTO THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND IN THE BUDGET. '(The log cabin at..Yost Park for $20,000 and the Fifth & Bell island.redesign'and relandscape for.,$3,500 were projects.el,iminated.) MOTION CARRIED. Council- man Gould commented that at last Saturday's workshop he had asked for one salary position in the .170 • s December 16, 1980 - continued Public Works Department to:be.eliminated. He said he felt one.of the supervisory positions should be eliminated and the department could determine it. The Counci1 decided to recess to Executive Session to discuss this. Prior to the recess City Attorney Wayne Tanaka asked for.passage of a proposed -.,resolution he had provided earlier in the evening for the perusal of.the Council. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO PASS RESOLUTION 482, PETITIONING THE'SNONOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH A MUNICIPAL�DEPARTMENT OF THE SOUTH DISTRICT COURT FOR THECITY OF EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting then adjourned to Executive Session at 11:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:52 p.m. and there was no further discussion of the previous subject. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN'MOVED, SECONDED'BY' COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT SINCE THE BUDGET WAS IN BALANCE AT THAT POINT, THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL A PROPOSED ORDINANCE PASSING THE BUDGET ON SATURDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 20, 1980, AT 8:30 A.M. Councilman Gould noted that the ordinance would incorporate all of the changes shown in -the memo, of December 16, 1980 to the Mayor and City Council from the Finance Director. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST VOTING NO. Councilman Nordquist,,said he did not feel they should sell property to balance the budget. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. i 1 iRENE°VARNEY MORAN, Ci I Clerk December 20, 1980 - Special Meeting HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor A special meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Mayor Pro tem John Nordquist in the Council Chambers'of the Edmonds Civic Center. The purpose of the meeting was to pass the 1981 Budget�Ordinance and the 1981 Salary Ordinance. Mayor Harrison arrived shortly after the meeting was called to order. PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Jo -Anne Jaech Bill Kasper Katherine Allen John Nordquist Ray Gould Larry Naughten Mary Goetz Paul Christensen, Student Rep. STAFF PRESENT Art Housler, Finance Director Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk Councilman Nordquist was.asked what it would take for him to approve the budget, and he responded that he was not happy with selling property to balance the budget. There was general discussion regarding sale of property and it was felt that selling property was not a desirable way to balance the budget. The suggestion -was -made that the cost of the Everett -filtration plant could be offset in 1982 with the sale of the 7th and Elm property. Councilwoman Allen said she had been doing some investigating regarding court costs in view of the status of the Edmonds Municipal Court and she found that'Everett has 30% more -cases than Edmonds does and their costs'in District Court are less than those of Edmonds. She was confident that there was approximately $100,000 in the budget above what would be needed if Edmonds were to go'to Distri'ct.Court. This was discussed and it appeared that the sale of property could'be averted on that..basis. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN,NOP,DQUIST, THAT-THE.BUDGET BE BALANCED BY DECREASING THE COURT,COSTS AND ELIMINATING THE SALE OF LAND, BUT AT THE'SAME.TIME KEEPING IN MIND THE CONSIDERATION OF SELLING SOME LAND AS THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE OWNING LAND IT -DOES NOT NEED. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kasper said he was not sure there was money in the -budget to do the personnel studies the Council wants to do and to improve personnel management. Councilwoman Allen said that is in the Contingency Fund. Councilman Kasper did not think the City was getting into enough modern-day personnel.practices, such as in the area of supervision and an analysis.of how merit increases and wages are granted. He felt the wages he saw were too.high, especially the top management wages, and that the overall supervision costs are excessive. He noted that this is a service organization so you cannot cut those service jobs. He also noted that he had felt the major job of the M.A.A. was to.be personnel. Mayor Harrison commented that the City really has not gotten into the objectives which it is trying to accomplish, and he thought the Council could get more involved in that. He felt it should be investigated to see what each department is accomplishing, decide what is wanted, and set up a staff to accomplish those objectives.- Councilman Gould added that it should be deter- mined how many people there should be and an objective set down the line to decrease to a certain level taking attrition into consideration, and before 1981 budget time a plan should be accomplished. Councilman Gould noted that the Council is trying hard to go.down the same line as the Mayor, and that they have.the same general philosophy. He thought they had made some bona fide efforts to accommodate what the Mayor is trying to do, and he thought there should be a solid plan by the end of 1981. Mayor Harrison responded that he did not.mind seeing a loose budget passed and that he would.make every effort -to save as much as possible. He said his goal is to provide as efficient and economical a budget as -':possible. COUNCILMAN GOULD.-MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT THE FIRST�TUESDAY IN MAYBE SET FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE.PROPOSAL.REGARDING.COUNCIL OBJECTIVES is