Loading...
19810721 City Council Minutes289 • July 14, 1981 - continued Councilmember Jaech saO.ahe-Finance Committee would.like all the departments to 'prioritize the services they supply so if services'have to be cut somewhere-the.Council will have a head start on planning. She raised the question of taxing on video games And after a brief discussion it was decided to take that up at.the.Council/Staff retreat. The Mayor was asked to look into. lobbying in Olympia to increase the sales tax for the City and also to lobby -to change the municipal court law so the City can have its own municipal court again. Councilmember: Jaech said.she.had.received some citizen inquiries about an incident mentioned recently regarding the connection of -a side sewer that had been disconnected by Russ Johnson on 2nd Ave. Former Public Works Director.Fred Herzberg had expressed.concern that a precedent was being set for City crews to work on private property and correct the mistake of a private contractor. Mayor ,Harrison said this was a very -complicated situation.and perhaps1 t was time for the Council to.get involved in it. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED; SECONDED.BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO PLACE FOR DISCUSSION ON THE AUGUST 4, 1981 AGENDA THE BROKEN SEWER LINE AT 509.2ND AVE. N. IN REGARD TO CONTRACTOR RUSS JOHNSON. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Jaech asked'the status of the Space.Needs Study. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO REVIEW THE SPACE NEEDS STUDY ON AUGUST 18, 1981. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist reminded the Council that he had suggested at the time of the last report that Mr. Herzberg be brought back on contract to finalize.thestudy. Planning Director Mary Lou Block noted that when the draft was furnished responses had been solicited from the Department Heads and Council., but none had�been­received. Councilmember Allen thought if there were no comments received by August 4, then the Council should authorize contracting with Mr. Herzberg to help with the final draft. Councilmember Allen asked for a.report on the recent .City of Edmonds employees' blood drawing. Jim Adams responded that the drawing -had been last Wednesday and 46 pints were donated. • 1 1 COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, THAT A REQUEST.BE PUT ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE INCORPORATING THE COUNCIL'S PHILOSOPHY THAT CAR WASHES ARE NOT AN'APPROPRIATE USE IN THE BN-ZONE. Planning Director Mary Lou Block said that would first have to go to the Planning Advisory Board..so a definite Council agenda date would not be established at this time. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Gould advised the Clerk that he would not be present for the August 4 and August ll�, 1981 meetings. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 10:40 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, City Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor. July 21, 1981 The regular meeting of the Edmonds.City Council was.called to order at•7:45 p.m. (following a 7:00 p.m. Executive Session) by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers'of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Harve Harrison; Mayor Katherine Allen Bill Kasper Ray Gould Jo -Anne Jaech Larry Naughten Mary Goetz John'Nordquist CONSENT AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Jack Mitchell, Acting Public Works Director Jim.Adams, City Engineer Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Dan Prinz,.Asst. Police Chief Jeff Ristau, Accountant Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Mark Eames,. City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILMEMEER GOULD, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items.on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of July i4, 1981. (C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claim for Damages.from.Richard Mendes in the amount of $16.99. (D) Authorization to.execute interlocal agreement for gasoline and diesel products. (E) Award of bid on construction of Library to"Prime Construction. Co. for base bid of $2,332,000, plus Alternates*l,.2, and 3, for a total award of $2,403,100 (excluding State sales tax). (F) Authorization to fund.NE-1 Typist position for Fire Department until end of 1981. '2, July 21, 1981 - continued • MAYOR Mayor Harrison reported that he had been interviewing M.A.A. candidates and had talked at length on the telephone with one from Wisconsin whom he would like to have come for a personal interview with the Mayor and the Council. He requested authorization to provide.this candidate air fare to come for the inter- view. The candidate has relatives with whom he can stay so.housing and local- transportation would not have to be provided to him durin.g:his.-stay. The Mayor had provided.Ahe Council copies of the candidate's resume. Councilmember Nordquist asked.the Mayor whether his letter delineating the duties which will be assigned to the new M.A.'A. had been sent to all those he considered. He replied that it had not but it had been discussed at each interview and also had been discussed with this candidate.on the telephone. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED.BY-000NCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO AUTHORIZE THE REQUESTED AIR FARE .FROM.THE MAYOR'S BUDGET... MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Harrison said he would interviewthe candidate first and then arrange for.an.interview with the Council. Mayor Harrison also asked that the Council consider reclassifying the M.A.A. position from E-13 to E-11 as suggested in his July 10, 1981 memorandum to the Council.. He also recommended that the Finance Director position be reclassified.from E-9 to E-10. This is because he intends that the Finance Director, rather than the M.A.A., assist him in preparing the preliminary budget and maintaining budgetary control. He noted that the salary publicized for the M.A.A. position would fit the E-11 classification. He also hadprovided.the Council with a notification of position opening at the City of Olympia for Assistant City Supervisor at a considerab-ly lower salary than that of the Edmonds.M:A.A:'which.helsaid indicated that even at E-11,Edmonds is paying in the upper ranges. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ, TO CONSIDER THE MAYOR'S LETTER REGARDING RECLASSIFICATION OF THE M..A.A. AND FINANCE DIRECTOR POSITIONS AT THE AUGUST 4, 1981 MEETING AT WHICH TIME THE PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATION WILL BE DISCUSSED, AS.THIS WOULD BE RELATED TO THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC WORKS.POSITION TO AN E-10. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE • Dave Crow, 348 Sunset Ave., stated that'the problems on Sunset Ave. have not improved a great deal since last summer. He said the cruising has decreased but the young people abuse the park to no end. He asked that Assistant.Police.Chief Dan Prinz give his opinion. Chief Prinz thought the problem had abated since last year but -only because the weather has not been very good. He said this is a gathering point from,7:00-9:30 p.m. and there is a.lot of activity, much of it illegal, including drinking, loud music, and.pot smoking. He•thought it would continue to be a problem as long as the park is there, and he.noted that this is a social problem, no different from those in other cities, and the activities are easily seen in this area --especially by the residents of Sunset Ave. He thought they had a legitimate:complaint about what goes on there, but when the Police cars get in the area the people hide what they are doing. He noted that there had been some complaints from the area which were not bona fide complaints, but he.said most of them are. Mr. Crow thought the problem to be the park. He said it is not being used.by the older people because of the activities there. Last week he had spent all'the evenings from Monday through Friday observing the situation. He counted 550 young people --and 35 police cars going through --and he said the noise from the police cars' loudspeakers, trying to.move. the traffic on, only added to the noise from the young people. He suggested that no parking be allowed on the west side after 6:00 p.m., and that people who want to use the park could walk to it like they do at the other. parks. He thought that removing the cars would remove the problem. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY_COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ, TO PLACE A HEARING ON THE AUGUST 4, 1981 AGENDA TO REVIEW THE ALTERNATIVES FOR SUNSET AVE. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Allen asked the Mayor to have the Police Department suggest something that they can enforce. Herb Wright, another -resident of Sunset Ave., asked if the Mayor could not pass an emer- gency ordinance because they need relief and do not want.to wait for hearings. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that in order to establish a valid no parking zone different from what is in effect currently.it would take Council action. Bill.Johnson, 704 Maple St.,-again,addressed the Council regarding a:piece of City owned property on Meadowdale Beach Rd. which he.would like to have designated -,for open space. He submitted a petition signed by -area. -residents in support -of his proposal. He noted that his previous request to rezone this property to OS.had been denied, and he now proposed that he pay $3,000 to the City for the property (the amount the City had.paid for it) with both parties guaranteeing that it would remain in open space, and that while this was being considered this property should be removed from the list of City owned properties being-considered'for sale. 'COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER.ALLEN, THAT THIS BE PLACED ON THE AUGUST 18,..1981 AGENDA FOR REVIEW. Councilmember Gould said they should know the value of the property, and*Councilmember Allen asked whether the City is restricted to.sell it at a minimum percentage of the appraised value. Mr. Tanaka said the City is not so restricted. MOTION CARRIED.. Ray Martin, 18704 94th.Ave. W.,: thanked .the Council for giving the previous request their considera- tion. Mr. Martin's concern was.regarding campaign signs:. He understood that there is no State or County regulation to restrict -them'. but that .there is a City ordinance doing so. His concern was that one candidate has erected signs prior to the filing,for office. Planning Director Mary Lou Block referred to the Sign Code and,said that signs can only remain for .ten days after an election' (on private property) but that.nothing is stated regarding the period before the election except for in the public,right-of-way. Councilmember Gould advised Mr.. Martin that there is the possibility . that this candidate has already.filed because there is a provision for filing by mail if.one is away during the filing period. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, THAT CAMPAIGN SIGNS BE DISCUSSED AT THE JULY 28, 1981 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL`= LID'206, WATER/SEWER,:VICINITY 76TH & 208TH City Engineer Jim Adams reviewed.the'particulars of -the LID. The final assessments were less than the preliminary estimates, water being $20.0295 per ZFF, and sewer being $22.246589 per ZFF. He recommended approval. The hearing was opened. Cornell Martin, 7508 210th S..W., asked when they could hook up and pay.. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka then explained that this was the meeting:fow the Council to confirm -the final assessments and if U • July 21, 1981 - continued anyone wished to make any.objection he must do so.this evening and such objection -must be in writing, and any protest not received in writing would be waived:.`He said the Council would take action on the protests and confirm'or.modify -the.f.inal assessment,.and they would confirm..the final assessment roll.by passage of an ordinance. .A notice then will -be published in the newspaper and the affected parties will have 30 days in.which.to make the full,payment of the principal, and after that period interest be He said .the Council then will authorize.the sale of bonds to get the money to pay the contractor,;and then.the affected parties' first:.installment will be due one-year after the bonds.are sold, so approximately one year and two months from now the first payment will be due, and payments will be yearly after that.. Mr. Adams stated.that...they, could connect to the sewer anytime they wished, but his office.will send out letters after the ordinance .is passed requiring hookup within.60 days.after receipt of the.letter-. Hilda DeRusha.was present.to obj.ect•to her assessment, and she had.fi.led a letter of objection with the Clerk just prior to this evening's meeting. She said her:frontage.is 30' and that the assess- ment was too high for.that. John Rendall of Reid, Middleton & Associates, quickly checked the figures and said her assessment was correct, and Mr..Adams also said -the figures appeared to be correct based.on those of adjacent -properties. , A short recess was declared for Mr. Adams.to confer with,Mrs. DeRusha and to check the figures again. When the hearing reconvened Mr. Adams said he had recalculated the zone front footage and it was an -accurate calculation. Ethel' -Humphreys, 7227 210th S.W.., asked if there is a:charge for.the permit to connect. Mr. Adams said the fee is $50 ($25 for the permit and $25 connection fee), which includes all inspections. She asked if there was a senior citizen discount and was told there was not. She. -was referred to the County Assessor's office for information regarding deferring payment until transfer of ownership for people in a certain age and income bracket. She also asked if they could do the. excavation • themselves and she was told they could, it just must pass the inspection criteria, and that the Engineering Division would assist by providing all the information they .needed. No one else wished to speak, and the hear-ing:was.closed. The proposed ordinance had -not been provided to the Council, so COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT THE PROPOSED-ORD.INANCE APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL OF 1ID.206 BE PLACED ON THE JULY 28, 1981 CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING -ON FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL:'- LID 207, WATER/SEWER., VICINITY 72ND & 175TH City Engineer Jim Adams reviewed the particulars of the LID.. Again, the final assessments were less than the preliminary estimates, water being $20.539850. per ZFF, and sewer being $14.395396 per ZFF. He recommended approval. The hearing was opened. Tim Stewart, 8207•Meridian,:.Seattle, said.he had paid:a $700.water assessment .in 1976 when he purchased his property, and he asked 'if there was an appeal process through which he could.go to reduce his portion of the water assessment.. Mr. Adams said his previous assessment was for.installation of a line that now is substandard.so it,must be replaced. Dom -McQuade, who had•subd.ivi-ded this property, explained that what Mr. Stewart had paid in• 1976 was an amount of money for a share of the water system that was installed as a part of the subdivision. Mr. McQuade said he had put in the water mai.n;=and when he,sold the lots he required the.purchasers to reimburse him for their portions of that installation. He said Mr...Stewart had not developed the property and -now -wants to sell it, but what he paid was, not an assessment. Mr. Adams further explained that the original line_was a 6" line, but now an 8" line is required for fi.re protection., He did not know how long the-6" line had been in place, but he noted.that an 8" line carries almost twice what a 6" line carries. Mr. McQuade. congratulated the Engineering Division for getting the LID in for a lot less money than was expected, and he said it improved the fire protection in the valley there. Councilmember Allen observed that it appeared obvious that Mr. Stewart could not get relief for the.money.he previously had paid. Councilmember Kasper thought.there.should be someway by which he.should only pay the amount over is been $700 he previously had paid. .City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that everyone in -the LID has been benefitted by this project, and whether it is.equ-itable or necessary to replace a line :is a decision that should have been made when this was commenced, but now the line i.s in and Mr. Stewart has been benefitted. (Mr. Stewart filed a•.letter of protest .with the Clerk.) Nelson -Weisman, Box 611, Lynnwood., was the person interested in.purchasing Mr.. Stewart's lot, and he said it is,impossible to get a loan from a bank on encumbered property, so he felt there was.a substantial chance that he would not be able to build.within the next half -year and therefore would .be unable to consummate the.'purchase of the property —He asked for an immediate.dec-ision on this. Councilmember.Kasper advi-sed.him that clear title is required to get a first mortgage, but that he could put the money into.eserow to clear the title..:No-one else wished to speak, and the hearing was..cl osed. Again, -:the ordinance -had not been..provided to the Council,.so 000NCILMEMBER ALLEN_MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER..GOULD, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL OF LID 207 BE PLACED ON THE JULY 28,.1981 CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION -CARRIED. - HEARING ON PARKING PROPOSAL -FOR -MAJOR REMODEL AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF 5TH AVE. AND MAIN ST. .(BC/JACQUE MAYO) Councilmember Allen stated that a report is forthcom.ing..from the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce regarding parking in.Edmonds, and she thought it would have a.great effect on this proposal., so she suggested postponing this hearing until that.report is received,.unless.it would create a -.hardship on the applicant. Planning Director Mary Lou Block responded.that the report had not yet been received by the Planning Department and the soonest it could go.the Planning Advisory Board would be August 12, and it.would go to the Counci-l.'after that.. Councilmember.:Gould observed that this proposal was vested under the old Code.., City Attorney Wayne Tanaka:sai-d that was so but that -there was nothing in the old Code that would:mandate that the Council.a low,the applicant to have.a certain number of parking spaces in the in. -lieu fund as opposed to bui.lding:them-..on site--it-was,left to the Council to determine how many--and-wh-ile.the project is bei•ng':consadered under the old.Code.the Council has • to consider it in light of the conditions today. Ms. Block then reviewed the proposal. 292 July 21, 1981 - continued • The prop.osed.project,will.encompass..all: bu.ildi,ngs from the Edmonds Theater east to the corner of 5th and Main and north to include Du'.r.bin's Women's Apparel Shop. 'The first level will be remodeled, and second and third stories will be added:. The gross floor area will -be increased from 14,157 sq. ft. to 30,525 sq. ft. The uses on the street floor are expected to remain.the same and the second and third floors will be 80% offices not"providing on -site customer service and 20% personal service uses. The pertinent Code requires that with a project of this --type no additional spaces need be furnished for the existing area, but.all spaces required.for.the expansion must be provided. The Council may allow for necessary:par.king spaces to be prov,ided.by payment into the in -lieu fund. The present cost per space is $1,000., The existing structure, with the present uses, would require 90 parking spaces.. There are none.available. The new.addition, with the uses proposed, would require 29 parking spaces. The applicant, Dr. Jacque Mayo, has "requested to..pay the in-lieu.fee for the 29 required parking spaces because•he has -no chance of getting any on -site parking. Ms. Block reviewed the ramifications of this request and discussed the current.Chamber. of Commerce parking study. She concluded that there essentially are three alternatives for this.proposal: (1) Approve Dr. Mayo's proposal as submitted and coll.ect'the.$29,000 for the required parking; (2) Deny the proposal and require Dr. Mayo to provide the necessary spaces; or (3).Develop a plan whereby some of the required spaces are provided. Ms. Block noted'that�the Policy Plan and general sentiment favor a healthy Central. Business District which'ts periodically revitalized and where development or redevelopment is not stifled because the property owners are unable to provide all necessary on -site parking. However, she added that in fairness to the existing businesses and to shoppers adequate parking must be available. She also noted that one. of the first Chamber Parking Committee recommendations will be to increase the in -lieu fees, but.that'will not be applicable to this application. She said their recommendation probably will not be to go for an LID .at.this time because of high cost. She recommended approving the proposal as it generally meets the criteria in both the former and present codes. Councilmember Allen suggested another alternative--that-there be no cars at all from 4th to 6th on Main St. The hearing was opened. Bill Mathias, 540 Holly Dr.,•said.that.realistically the.in-lieu fund is not working and not enough • money has been gathered to construct.a parking facility .in the downtown area. He thought entire in - lieu parking for the proposal would create a problem and._he.thought the Chamber proposal should be examined before making a decision -on this, if it could be seen in the relatively near future. Ray Martin, 18704 94th W., said:he had been asked by Lloyd Ostrom to present his ideas. Mr. Ostrom has been serving on the Chamber Parking Committee and their report is nearly finished. Mr. Martin thought this was more than a renovation and he said the in -lieu situation did not make sense. He suggested the whole in -lieu question be considered along with this application. He said everyone wants a viable.downtown community but"that will not depend.on.subsidizing an individual to this extent. He also commented that the old Code was changed with good reason and the parking situation needs to be examined. Jacque Mayo, the applicant, said -he realized the $1,000 in -.lieu fee was established some time ago, but he said the talk is now about $8.,000-per parking space, and.for 29 spaces they would have to give up the development. He thought there are a lot of.old buildings in Edmonds that will not be renovated if,the in -lieu parking fees reach that amount. He said that anything that happens to the City in the downtown area is a benefit to everyone and a better solution has to be established than the in -lieu fee, and it will fall i-nto.an area of an LID where the business owners and property owners will be assessed. He felt that if it was going to be a.cost incurred it would have to be from both ends and that would be a long time happening unless leases'.could be rewritten. He noted that at this time in the City not many businesses are thriving and., therefore, there is a lot of parking, and he did not think the.Chamber'report was going to solVe'the problem. He said he does not have a firm commitment on his.construction costs yet,.and.he•did not know the solution at this point. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid,.sai°d the -original concept ofthe.in-.lieu•parking was to preserve the architectural design of down.town.Edmonds and -at the time it.was..initiated there was.quite a bit of land available. She thought it was .time for the Council.to.review the whole -concept of in -lieu • parking because there is less and less land available to create that parking. Laura Hall., Chairman of the Planning Advisory Board, said when this was 'first presented to the PAB by the Council.they started discussing it and then heard.the.Chamber was undertaking their study. She said the PAB may hold up the.process.when they get the .report, but one of their concerns is what land is left. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Councilmember:Gould.discussed the varioususes of'the proposal, noting that 60% of the spaces are because of the theater, but those .spaces.are needed at different..times from the other uses. Going on a 60%/40% basis, he thought the applicant should be required to provide 12 spaces and be allowed to pay into the in -lieu fund for 17 spaces. He did not think they should grant the 29 spaces in the in -lieu fund as the spaces are required because of the businesses going in there. He also thought they would have .to propose an. LID in the downtown business district and contribute the in -lieu fund to that. Councilmember Naughten responded that the applicant.may not be able to provide the 12 spaces, but somehow they had to .develop a system that would work. Councilmember Gould suggested that when the Chamber report is received they should see if the sites previously noted are still available and'if they can be purchased. 'Councilmember Nordquist said part of this proposal was for new construction and the applicant should provide the parking for that. Councilmember Kasper said stagnation of.the downtown area.could be.created, but there are.some possible alternatives. He noted that there are sizable tax .cred.its in rehabing, but he did not.know whether they apply to this remodeling. Some other ideas he suggested were.progressive.increases in in -lieu fees, leasehold arrangements, and incorporation of.no protest clauses. 'He said.he could not in all conscience allow 29 stalls. to be bought without some additional parking being acquired, even on a leasehold basis. Dewey Leyda, 342 Sunset, owner of the southeast corner of 5th.and Main St., said he bought 14 parking stalls to take care of his people -and he has all of the.neighbors parking there, and he did not know why he should.pay taxes.for somebody to.get-in-lieu.parking and -have to take care of them in his lot. 0 293 • July 21, 1981 - continued Councilmember Gould then suggested that possibly the.City.'should.sel'l some excess. property :and buy some parking.with the proceeds.., COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST THEN MOVED,,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, THAT THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED;.SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT.'S PROVIDING 14 PARKING SPACES AND PAYING FOR.15 INTO THE IN=.LIEU FUND. Councilmember Naughten thought 17/12 would be more appropriate as outlined earlier by Councilmember Gould. Councilmember.A.11en,said she would vote against the motion because she.preferred--the Staff recommendation of Alternate I. She .felt they would be penalizing the applicant for lack'of Council action.wh.ich.should have been taken long ago. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER.ALLEN VOTING..,NO.. Councilmember Gould said fie -thought they should hold in abeyance any further approvals of development -'proposals until they have the Chamber report'. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST. MOVED,. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER.GOULD, TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER AT THE JULY 28,.1981 WORK MEETING. A.ROLL CALL VOTE WAS..TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST, GOULD, JAECH, AND NAUGHTEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALLEN,.KASPER,-AND GOETZ VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON LOAD LIMIT RESTRICTIONS REGARDING TRANSIT.ROUTE.ON:76TH AVE.-W.,. FROM:SR.104 TO HIGHWAY 99 City Engineer Jim Adams explained that Community Transit had,.reauested..that the 10,000 pound load limit be lifted in order that they could establish a_route as identified. He said -the street is classified as a community arterial and has sufficient structural.capacity to carry the additional proposed load. The buses weigh 22,000 pounds. He recommended waiving -the load limit for transit only. The hearing was opened, nobody wished to speak,, and the hearing was closed. 1 Councilmember Nordquist said.this recommendation was welcome in' the Ballinger community and by the Ballinger Community Club.. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO ORAFT'AN ORDINANCE PERMITTING COMMUNITY TRANSIT TO USE 76TH AVE. AS PROPOSED AND THAT THE LOAD LIMIT BE RETAINED EXCEPT.FOP, TRANSIT USE; AND FURTHER, THAT THIS BE ON A TRIAL BASIS UNTIL MAY 1, 1982, AT WHICH TIME THE COUNCIL WILL EVALUATE IT. MOTION.CARRIED. REPORT FROM ARCHITECTURAL`DESIGN BOARD REGARDING SUGGESTIONS -MADE AT JUNE 15 CITY.COUNCIL MEETING On July 8, 1981 the ADB held a special meeting to discuss the suggestions made at the June 15, 1981 City Council meeting.. A response with comments and suggestions was provided to the'Council. Planning Director Mary Lou Block read the sixteen items aloud. Councilmember Naughten commented that one of the problems previously .noted but not on -the list was the matter of timely minutes, and it appeared that problem was resolved. The ADB report was briefly discussed and it was felt that those items requiring ordinance changes should be considered immediately. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, THAT THE ITEMS IN THE ADB REPORT REQUIRING ORDINANCE CHANGES (ITEMS 7, 8, 9, 10, AND 14) BE DISCUSSED AT THE AUGUST 18, 1981 COUNCIL`MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper observed that a large.part of the problem involves Item 12 (-stronger enforcement of ADB decisions). SHELL CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN PROJECT This item had been discussed at.the last work meeting. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST,MOVED; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ, TO ACCEPT -THE RECOMMENDATION OF:THE STAFF, BASED ON THE REPORTS RECEIVED. MOTION CARRIED: REVIEW OF SEWER LIFT STATION PROGRAM Acting .Public Works Director Jack Mitchell had provided.a report reflecting the account of labor, equipment, and material expenses for the period March 1- June 30, 1981, using in-house forces, and also for expenses for that same period of 1980 when Moose City Services had the contract. He said the stations now are in top mechanical condition, having had .only three emergency call -outs in the past four.months, as compared with numerous emergency call -outs by Moose City Service, which he attributed to lack of proper preventive maintenance... He noted that down time has been'practically nil and he thought they could'do the work for 50% of what it had cost in the last few years under contract. Councilmember'Gould'observed that this was evidence of a job well done. He noted that no staff was added and costswere cut in half. The Public Works Department was commended for this accomplishment. PORT OF=E DMONDS REOUEST'REGARDING PORT SECURITY Finance:Director Art Housler had provided a report:analyzing the effects of the Port's proposal, a 12.3% reduction in payment for port security. He listed benefits to the City'in having the security patrol under the Port agreement: (1) The value of_an.officer present in the area'.16 hours per day, everyday;-(2).The value.of three additional officers under the Police Chief's.command; (3) The value of the time spent solving City related problems, patrolling streets in the Port -area, and opening and closing parks; and (4). The value of crime deterrence by the presence of an officer. He felt these were of greater significance than reflected.in the costa Assistant Police Chief Dan Prinz also recommended accepting the Port's proposal. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PORT'S .PROPOSAL REGARDING.PORT SECURITY.($68,000 PER YEAR).:FOR THE BALANCE OF 1981 AND THAT THE MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN -THE CONTRACT, RECOGNIZING THAT IN HAVING THREE EXTRA OFFICERS ON THE STAFF.THE CITY GAINS SOME FLEXIBILITY. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER.SECONDED.THE,MOTION FOR DISCUSSION'. Council - member Jaech asked why the request was to change the.contract.during the year, and Chief Prinz responded.that the Port was not happy with the contract, so they got some other..bids and then made this proposal. He said -the -officers there are only. .security personnel and he noted that a vehicle had been purchased for that -.use. Councilmember Nordquist'said the.Edmonds police would have to back up the security people anyway if there is a problem... THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST VOTING NO. DISCUSSION -OF 1982 COUNCIL/MAYOR'COMPENSATION CJ .Councilmember Allen change& her previous proposal for...the.salary of the three newly elected Council - members. She now proposed-th-at it be $300 per month and nothing -extra for meetings. She said that 24 July 21, 1981 - continued 0 would be $4,400 additional cost per. year. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO ESTABLISH A SALARY -FOR NEWLY ELECTED COUNCILMEMBERS OF.$300 PER MONTH.. Councilmember Naughten preferred that Councilmembe.rs be paid for meetings..attended', feeling they should not be paid if they do not attend. He favored $250 per month which worked out to $50 per meeting. Council - member Gould again stated that.he thought.the Council should set an example and that the salary should be only a token of recognition.for services to the City. .He also felt more comfortable that salary be.on a per meeting basis.. Councilmember Goetz did not agree with the per meeting basis because other time is involved..-Councilmember Jaech said.she.thought what they are paid should be a token, agreeing with Councilmember.'Gould. She said that.since they are going into difficult times with the budget they have to dowhat they expect -the Staff to do.in negotiating their salary. She noted thata number of the Council had.said they do not believe in cost -of -living increases,` and the Council was trying to do something -for -the City and it was not for the pay involved. She did not think they should be paid by meeting because there are other meetings the Councilmembers attend. She favored a flat monthly rate, leaving it as it is or going to $250 per month. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE MONTHLY SALARY FOR NEWLY ELECTED COUNCILMEMBERS BE $250-PER MONTH. Councilmember Naughten observed that such would equate to 4.8% per year adjustment.over four years. A ROLL CALL VOTE.WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO AMEND, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST, JAECH, ALLEN, KASPER, AND GOETZ VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL - MEMBERS GOULD AND NAUGHTEN'VOTING NO. MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER GOULD VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED:BY'000NCILMEMBER GOULD, THAT THE MAYOR'S SALARY BE INCREASED BY 10%, RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 1, 1981. MOTION CARRIED,. WITH COUNCILMEMBER JAECH VOTING NO. DISCUSSION ON SENIOR FIRE FIGHTING POSITION COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED.BY.000NCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAYOR BE ACCEPTED. The Mayor's' recommendation was that, as is the current procedure, Fire Fighter A (NE- • 11) be the highest.grade which.can.be attained automatically. The organization chart provides for only three Senior Fire Fighters (NE-12), and that is consistent with the Police Department_organi- zation where Patrolman A (NE-.11) is the highest grade which. can be attained automatically. THE MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL Councilmember Nordquist suggested -that. -instead of the departments prioritizing services in working on the 1982 budget, that the Fihance.-Director allocate a certain dollar amount per department and ask each department head to meet that., with a starting target being 106%, and that preparations for the retreat be made accordingly:COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN THAT IN BUDGETING FOR 1982 THE'FINANCE DIRECTOR PROVIDE THE FIGURE OF 106%'OF EACH DEPART- MENT'S 1981 BUDGET. TO THE RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENT HEADS, AND.THAT.THE DEPARTMENT HEADS PREPARE THEIR BUDGETS ACCORDINGLY. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist-asked.the.Pl.anni.ng Director what is happening on Sprague St. as he under- stood problems.again had surfaced:. .-Planning -Director Mary Lou Block reviewed what had happened previously and said she had met on May 26, 1981 with Mr. McGinness who had requested elimination of the rockery requirement. The rockery was a requirement of the subdivision because it was in his submitted plan. A letter was sent to the attorney for theneighbors to advise them of this request and the neighbors later visited. the Planning office to inquire about the request. They indicated they did not favor eliminating.the rockery, and Ms. Block asked for that in writing but as yet had not received it. Mr. McGinness'began removal of the dirt and then the Planning Department heard from the neighbors that they objectedtto elimination of the rockery. Ms. Block again asked for their objection in writing but had not received it. The rockery is not a Code requirement, and the only reason it was incorporated was because he proposed it. City Engineer Jim Adams added that over 100 cu. yds. had been removed so far and Mr. McGinness plansto remove the rest (400 cu. yds.) next week. Mr. Adams is monitoring the amount removed. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka noted that there were • people in the audience.who wished to discuss this (some of the neighbors) and he cautioned the Council not to.respond to them at .this time because the Staff -'may make a decision on this which may go to the Council eventually. There was no further discussion. Council President Allen noted that.the Skipper's fund -raising -campaign for the marine preservation project officially is underway, and tickets are avail.able.at-the Anderson Center. Council President Allen reminded the Council of the City employee picnic on August 15 and of the retirement dinner for Abe Blandin on July 24. There was no further business to -come -before the Council,.and the.meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. l/ IRENE VARNEY-MORAN, CitydClerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor