Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19840131 City Council MinutesI I I I I January 24, 1984 -conti.nued COUNCIL Councilmember Hall acknowledged a letter from Ann Spivey expressing thanks for allowing the Mental Health Board to use the library facility for their meeting. 307 Council President Jaech suggested that it might be beneficial to have new board members meet with the City Attorney regarding their functions on the boards. Mr. Eames said he will do that, and he noted that periodically, and especially when there are several changes on a board, the City Attorney's office gives them a briefing on the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and conflict of interest. Council President Jaech noted that there is an advertisement in the newspaper for an Acquatics Coordinator, and she questioned that because nothing has been done about the pool yet .. Personnel Director Pat LeMay said the position of Athletic/Acquatics.Coordinator is being vacated. It was funded last year and there has been an incumbent since August. The position is not involved only with acquatics and it is funded for 1984. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.~. Janua.ry 31, 1984 ··The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT ABSENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Lloyd Ostrom Jo-Anne Jaech Jack Wilson John Nordquist Laura Hall Bi 11 Kasper Brian Stewart, Student Rep. CONSENT AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Art Housler, Finance Director Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Jim Adams, City Engineer Mary Lou Block; Planning Director Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Pat LeMay, Personnel Director Jim .Jessel, Property Manager Mark Eames, City Attorney John Wallace, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk Item (D) was removed ·from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The aoproved items on. the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of January 24, 1984. (C) Adoption of Ordinance 2415, deleting jail time for certain misdemeanors. (E) Authorization to advertise for bids for the 1984 cold water meters. (F) Final acceptance of work by Expert Stone Paving for Harbor Square/Marsh Walkway, and setting 30-day retainage period. (G) Approva·1 of one-year renewal of Depository Agreement for bank services. PROPOSED.RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SCHOOL DISTRICT 15 LEVY rrtem (D) on Consent Agenda] Councilmember Wilson noted that Ur. Reasby had apneared before the Council to solicit its supnort of the sct1ool levy, but he said it appeared to him that Dr. Reasby has some policies in place that are detrimental to this community, such as the ultimate effect of real estate values in this community maJ<ing it less attractive for young people to move here, disruption of traditional family educational patterns, .. and re.sidual effects on the local business community, as well as l.oss of community pride and spirH-..:refer.ring to the closure of schools in thisCity. He said he had supported school levies in Edmonds for 25 years but he opposes these policies which he feels are detrimental to this community. THEREFORE, COUNCIU·IEMllER WILSON MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT PASS THIS RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE SCHOOL LEVY BUT HE ENCOURAGED EACH CITIZEN OF EDMONDS TO VOTE HIS OR HER OWN CONSCIENCE. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER SECONDED THE MOTION. His reasons for voting against the resolution were different--he felt they should not be getting into such long-range levies (two years) and he did not think it the business of the Council to get into this. He did not think the issue should be before the Council. Councilmember Hall did not think they should be voting to endorse this on th~ part of the City. She said that last week the Mayor indicated he endorsed it personally, but not as the Mayor of Edmonds, and that.is he~ approach also. She said th~t sh~, as an indivi~ual, will be supporting it, but she will not be voting for the resolution because she feels she cannot bind the citizens to it. THE MOTION CARRIED. -... ------- 308 January 31, 1984 -continued Rt:VIC:w Mi~u uISCuSSI01~ OF F!Ki: SC:RVICE COiHRACT WITn WOOuWAY Dan Brady, Councilman from the Town of Woodway, stated that they are extremely pleased with the service they have received from the Edmonds Fire Department. He said the only issue they disagree on is funding as under the current agreement the average cost per citizen for fire service is much higher for a citizen of Woodway than for a citizen of Edmonds and that it takes 16% of the general fund in Edmonds and 30% of the general fund in Woodway. He suggested a different way to allocate the costs and displayed figures to illustrate his proposal and he noted that even with his proposal I the citizen of Woodway would still pay 125% of what the citizen of Edmonds would pay. He was asked if he would be willing to project this into a multi-year contract, instead of year by year, and he said he thought it would be in the interest of both Woodway and Edmonds to do so, and that his Mayor and Council also were in favor of that. He suggested three years but noted that they have to keep in mind the fire consolidation studies which could result in the most benefit to the citizens. Councilmemb~r Kasper expressed thanks to the Town of Woodway for their contribution to the study even though they are in a contract situation. Mr. Brady said he feels they should get into the highest possible cooperative mode. Councilmember Jaech requested that the Council be provided copies of the figures he discussed this evening and she suggested that they discuss this and pos-I sibly make a decision at the February 28 Finance Committee meeting. Mayor Naughten agreed that they could discuss it that evening and said they could keep working it until they come to agreement. Mayor Naughten announced a recess while the Council adjourned to Executive Session to discuss information regarding the next item.on the agenda. HEARING (CONTINUED FROM jANUARY 17) ON FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL -LID 211 -DRIFTWOOD PL. This item had been continued to consider the equity of the assessment to the Taylor property. Mr. Taylor still was out of town, and .City Engineer Jim Adams had written to him on January 9, asking that Mr. Taylor write a letter-of protest directly to the City Council outlining the facts of why he feels his assessment is not equitable. No answer had been received from Mr. Taylor. The hearing was re-opened for public input, but no one wished to speak, and the hearing again was closed. City Attorney Mark Eames noted that the proposed ordinance confirming the LID had been provided to the Council for the January 17 meeting, and if they intended to confirm it as presented by the City Engineer the motion would be to pass that ordinance, but if they wanted to do something with the assessment roll, that would require another motion. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- MEMBER KASPER, TO PASS ORDINANCE 2416, CONFIRMING LID 211, AND THEREFORE APPROVING THE FINAL ASSESS- MENT ROLL AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING TO ESTABLISH ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ON ALLEY BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD AVES. N. AND BELL AND EDMONDS STS. City Engineer Jim Adams said this matter came up because of a proposed condominium development. The developers wish to access all their parking from the alley but the alley is not wide enough to meet City Code requirements for two-way traffic. There are no provisions in the Code to allow development I to use one-way traffic on a public right-of-way, and the staff recommends that a policy be adopted and the Code amended to establish one-.way alleys when primary access exceeds five residential units or ten parking stalls. Recommended traffic direction would be: everything north orMain St. would go north, everything south of Main St. would go south, everything east of 5th Ave. would go east, and everything west of 5th Ave. would go west. Mr.-Adams said by changing the Code it would give administrative ability to approve this type of action for this and subsequent proposals. Mr. Eames said what is required is an amendment to Section 18.80 of the Code which deals with streets and driveways. The specific paving width requirements and right-of~way widths are set out in the Code. It is required for a project with more than ten dwelling units to have at least 22 1 of paving width and 40 1 of right-of-way, but there is no provis.ion for alleys and what happens if they access on an alley--it just is not addressed, and Mr. Eames said it probably should be. He said what was sug- gested by the Engineering Department regarding this project was to make the alley one-way and allow the project to access on the alley, which could not be allowed under the current Code. It was recommended that the Code be changed because this was a new situation which the Code does not cover. Mr. Eames said the process if it were to be a variance to this requirement was that they would have to go to the Hearing Examiner and it would have to be shown that some special circum- stance causes this particular section of the Code to be applied to him differently from anyone else, and that probably would not be the case and the Hearing Examiner probably would deny a variance to the width requirements. He said the proper way to handle it would be an amendment to the Code t~ address the width requirement when an.alley is involved for a n~mber of units. Councilmember Hall thought it appeared they would be changing the Code for this one case, but Mr. Eames responded that the staff has run into this situation previously and the Code does not address it. He noted that it is usually when a problem comes up that it is found that there is ~omething wrong with the Code. Councilmember Jaech was concerned because this was not published as a hearing to change the Com-I munity Development Code, and she said a hearing should be held for any change to the Code. She · thought that if the applicants wanted to proceed immediately their only option was to go before the Hearing Examiner and request a variance. Councilmember Kasper inquired as to whether they could ask the Council for an exception without going-to the Hearing Examiner, and Mr. Eames responded that the staff is recommending that the alley be made one-way in 1 ight of the traffic that would be generated by this particular project, and that .is something that can be done by the Council--designating the street one way. However, he said, the staff is stating that just making the alley one-way will not permit this particular project and the Council would have to amend the width requirements of the I Code for it to be permitted. The staff is recommending that there be a special width requirement for a one-way alley. Councilmember Jaech again said she felt there would have to be a public hearing for a Code change. Mr. Adams said the Engineering and Planning staff had discussed this and they would not recommend a variance for that width unless it was one-way, and they have indicated to the developers that if they get a one-way alley, then staff support will be given to a request for a variance on the width requireme~~· _Mr. Eames recommended that the Council take testimony and continue the hearing to a special date with a proposed ordinance and. advertise that .as a hearing on·the ·proposed'ordinance. Counci l!11ernber Jaec~ \·ia~te~ to see more in~ormation as she was not wel 1 enough informed as to whether ' I I I I I January 31, 1984 -continued or not that should be a one-way alley. She said they did not have any information to say what a·. street should be to carry a certain amount of traffic. The Council also wanted to see a map to see the areas impacted. The hearing was opened. · Warren Otteson; who was representing the applicants·;.;said.they were encouraged by.t~e public.support given at the ADB meeting as there were four homeowners in the Harbormaster Condominium of which one spoke in favor of the alley's being one-way.· Also, he said the owner of _t~e .Townhouse Apa~tments . also spoke in favor of it. He said it is planned that the prop~sed.condominium not ~ave any s~rface parking and they will allow for the greatest degree of lands~aping in back, on the sides, a~d in front of the building--39.7% of the area will be in landscaping. They are not concerned which way the a 11 ey goes one-way. 0 He said necessary safety lighting wi 11 be provided and th:y have encouraged· removal by the developer of the utiliites for the entire block. They fe~t it would be substantially safer to keep all parking off .3rd Ave. N. and off Bell St. and they will have an entirely enclosed, secure parking complex beneath the building. He said they had.been assu~ed that the Ci'ty Council was the proper authority for this action, and he asked the Council to act in favor of making the alley one-way in either direction. James Murphy, 200 2nd Ave. N., the Harbcrmaster Condominium, said his building gets. access to their parking from Bell St. He said the alley is practically one-way now but they do not leave northbound onto Edmonds St. because of the Towr:house which has its two accesses right on the alley so one has to be very careful. He did not oppose the one-way alley but would like there to be safety precautions suet. as speed bumps or ~irrors. Lenore Collins, 200 2nd Ave. N., the Harbormaster, agreed with Mr. Murphy that it would be good to have one-way traffic) but she was concerned about going to the method of a variance because it did not seem to be necessary. She said if the alley is not mentioned in the Code then it does not ~ave to be changed. She thought it seemed wasteful to have a public hearing, and she again stated that if the word 11 alley11 is n'ot in there, it does not apply to alleys. Mayor Naughten said ·jf they ii.re going to addr2ss a policy on alleys then they should have a public hearing. Mrs. Collins said it would be difficult to find an alley that met the 22' requirement. She favored a one-way alley, but without all the unnecessary paperwork. She agreed wit~ Mr. Adams' recommendation as to which directions alleys should go, based on their locations. Mr. Otteson addressed Mr. Murphy, saying there is a large utility pole well with"in the 16 1 corridor and an old and large tree which add to the concern·for safety going north. He said both wou1d le removed and it would be a straight 16 1 shot to the north, without the apparent safety hazards tt:ere now. Councilmember Hall read a letter from Ernie Rosholt, resident in the Harbormaster, who stated he has no objection to establisi1ing one-way traffic in the allE~y, but that the direction of traffic should be north to avoid congestion. Councilmember K;:,sper asked the reason for exiting the proposed condominium on Vie alley and not on Bell St. Mr. Otteson responded that with the height requirement and ti1e economics of the site they would lose too many underground parking spaces because of the slope of the ramp which would be picked up on the alley. All 38 stalls are underground and if they access directly off Bell they would lose approximately 8 stalls below which would have to be replaced above, and would reduce the landscuping. They wa.nt to have all the parking underground. COUNCILMEMBER Kl\SPER MOVED, SECONCED BY.COUNCILNEMBER HALL: TO I~STRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE MAKING THE ALLEY BET~EEN BELL AND EDMONDS ST. ONE-l~AY, NORTHBOUND. Counci lm2rnber Kasper thought the northbound one-way to be necessary for,the present traffic, and also a necessary reality of this project, but he said \-Jhether the project should access there wa.s another question. Councilmember Jaech wanted the concerns addressed which were mentioned by some of the people in the Harbormaster, and Councilmember Kasper said he would incorporate th~t into the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper noted that al'leys were not mentioned in either the old or the new Code, and he thought this building itself would stand and he said a recommendation should be made by the staff regarding safety, and it is a matter for the staff to determine if it can go out that way or if it cannot because of the volume of traffic. Mr. Eames noted that for access of a multiple dwelling with tan or more units there must be 22 1 wide paving. Ron Johnson~ designer cf the project, noted that Mr. Eames had indicated he did not think the Hearing Examiner would favor a variance. Mr. Eames said that is speculation, depending on the criteria the Hearing Examiner has to address. Mr. Eames noted that the only thing done this evening was that the direction of the alley was made one-way, and there is still the requirement of 22 1 of paving on the street of access, so in order to proceed with the project q variance or c, change to the Code will be needed. Regarding future policy on alleys, a future agenda item will be scheduled with information from the staff. HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER ·15, 38~ EDMONDS SHORELINE Mii.STER. PHOGRAM (CDC-4-83) Councilmember Jaech noted that this was an item in which Councilmember Ostrom was interested and wanted to participate but the hearing must be held because of the legally required publishing of it, and Planning Director Ma.ry Lou Block said it was published the three necessary times. City Attorney Mark Eames advised that the hearing could be continued for the benefit of Councilmember Ostrom after this evening's input was taken. Ms. Block indicated that the Port of Edmonds had requested three amendments to the City's Shoreline Master Program because the need for these amendments was demonstrated during the City's review of the Port's Shoreline Substantial Developn1ent Permit application for·their mid-marina expansion to provide approximately 116 new moorage spaces. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed changes to the Master Program on January 11, 1984, and minutes of that hearing had been provided to the Council, together with a memo from the Planning Board Chairman setting forth the Board's recommendation for approval of the code revisions. The Planning Board Chairman, Ken Mattson, indicated the reason for the recommendation of approval was that the amendments are consistent with 1 the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Program, and that the Board commends the Port for undertaking a project that will increase the general public's overall accessibility to the waterfront. January 31, 1984 -continued The proposed amendments were to Sections 15.38.100, 15.38.110, and 15.38.150 of the Shoreline Master Program to remove the limitation to only open pile bulkheads in the urban shoreline environment, to allow permanent breakwaters in the urban shoreline environment, to allow permanent breakwaters in the urban shoreline environment only in the CW zone, to allow dredging for the purpose of creating moorage in the CW zone, and to provide limited dredging in all three environments. Ms. Block said the State had been contacted to get their reaction to the recommended amendments and their only reaction was that the City should define its CW zone in a manner that would be understandable to I someone who did not have the City's Shoreline Master Program. She read the proposed definition which was acceptable to them. The hearing then was opened. Herb Carpenter of Reid, Middleton & Associates, was representing the Port of Edmonds. Also present were Port Commissioners Gordon Maxwell and Roger Stubbs, Port Manager William Auerswald, and Port attorney Dick Cole. Mr. Carpenter said the mid-marina project will connect the north and south boat harbors, and this project is the last phase of the Port's Master Program which was shown to the Council in 1978 and which established the Harbor Square area in order to move the industrial activities out of the marina area. He said there were some fisheries concerns with the original 1· proposal so they are modi.fying it to address those concerns~ The slips will be 28'-50 1 in length and will not be covered. There will be replacement of transient moorage, at least the amount.there now, and possibly more. Transient moorage at the marina now can accommodate 70+ boats {it is not defined in spaces). That is including 11 rafting,11 which Mr. Carpenter said is chaos. They think this plan can accommodate approximately that many boats, depending on the size of the boats. On the upland side there are some unfinished buildings to be removed and there will be parking for 40-50 cars. People will be able to walk all the way from the marsh to Union Oil Beach on a sidewalk and there is people oriented open space on either side of Anthony's restaurant. Charles Rezba, 510 12th N., said there is a facility in the existing marina called a 11 grid 11 which is used by some of the boat owners and allows one to work on his boat during low tide. He asked if there is any intent to replace that facility. Mr. Carpenter said the tide grid is not in the proposal at this time, but the stratocrane boat launcher/retriever can take large boats out and put them back. A·question was asked about provision of a small boat ramp, and Mr. Carpenter said there physically is not room on the Edmonds waterfront to construct a small boat launch and its required parking. Floyd Smith, 814 Dayton, said the rules now call for an open bulkhead, and there is no such thing--and one of the proposed Code changes is to correct that. Also, he said the Code speaks to a floating breakwater, which has not been found to be successful in Puget Sound, and that also is one of the changes. Further, he·said the proposal is to change the dredging policy, which he said is good as dredging must be done to maintain sufficient water depth at the ferry slips, Union Oil dock, and the floats in the marina. He said if dredging is not done at the floats the area will fill up, and he noted that the area south of the breakwater was made entirely by dredging and dredging should always be maintained, so the Port should be allowed to dredge. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., said he had attended the Planning Board and Hearing Examiner meetings and there was a decided lack of information, such as on the environmental checklist. He said there had been communication from the Department of Ecology which the Hearing Examiner did not have. He said the Port's environmental.checklist was a 11 joke 11 in that they used the same paragraph to answer each of the items~ Further, he said since the Port is the lead agency it has the right to approve its own checklist, and he thought they had not done a satisfactory job. He added that they are short of parking space but they are creating their own shortage by the dredging. He objected to the idea that the Council was being asked to change the Master Shorelines part of the Code for all of the CW area because anyone in the CW zone will be able to dredge for other purposes such as for marinas. He said if they decide that the Port has a viable project then this should be limited to the Port zone, but not the whole waterfront. He also was concerned about public access and said the general public are those people other than those who own large boats. He has no method to put his small boat into the Sound, and he felt the idea of public access had not been addressed and that the Council should consider public access as being able to put a small boat into Puget Sound. He thought a small boat launch would provide public access more than a walkway, and he questioned whether a walkway and viewing of boats was the type of access the public wants. He said there is the question of whether the project will have to be modeled--building a model and deciding if it will flush properly. Mr. Hertrich questioned whether this project should be allowed to go through until all the other questions are answered, and he thought the City should wait until the Department of Fisheries issue on flushing is answered compl~tely. He cautioned the Council that if they decided in favor of the changes they should limit them to the Port area only. Finis Tupper, 7ll Daley, said he is in favor of any kind of improvement over the present state of the old Port District, and that the Port of Edmonds is a marvelous facility, but he was concerned about the removal of so much earth and about changing the Code. He asked if it is desired that some of the private property north of the Port area have the same ability to remove uplands, such as in the Meadowdale area. He asked where the removed 84,000 cu. yds. of soil will be stored at the time of dredging and how much will be moved upland. Mr. Carpenter replied that if it turns out that most of the material is to be taken upland they will take it all that way, and there is the question of how to de-water the material before hRulin~ it off, and that will be done on,...s ite. · They have done it a number of times. Mr. Tupper spoke of public access, and said the Parks & Recreation Director had provided a memo regarding public access for the Hearing Examiner meeting, but the Planning Department has a completely different idea. He said this is an opportunity for the Port to do its best for the Port and for the taxpayers and a time to do its best for everybody concerned in the City. He said he would like to see it developed, but in the best interests of the City of Edmonds. Mr. Carpenter said the Port is not a private developer applicant, ·and this is not an adversary· situation, so if the I I I I I I I I , ; I' January 31, 1984 -continued assorted Citv aaencies have interests that can be satisfied within the scope of the project the Port \'Ii 11 make every effort to do that. Ms. Block then reiterated the staff recommendation, $aying they do want to get public access down there and improve the recreational facilities~ and the proposed Code amendments will not significantly alter the Shorelines Program but.will make it flexible enough to address the concerns .of ~he Port and other potential waterfront d~v~lop~ents, so the staff recommends approval. .Regarding the section that requires an. "open· pi l e·11 bulkhead, she said ·nobody can define that~ and that kind of construction would create a pier. It is not known why that term was put in the Code. The moving breakwater, she said, does not work in Puget Sol.ind. Regarding dredging for moorage, she said limiting it to the CW zone limits it to where the commercial requirements are, and they could apply for a Shorelines Permit but it does not automatically insure that they get it--it only allows them to apply. The h~arin~ was cl~s~d. •. Councilmember Kasper recalled·that 14-15 months ago the Council went on record that they were interest~d in what the Port was doing and were interested in having as much open space as possible so they commented against covered moorage because that would take away from open space. He said that basically, from what he saw, they were looking for not blocking the water- front from being walked .along; and many .of the things the Council asked· for had .been cor.s.idered in this project. He did not recall distussion of a small boat launth, but he did not think they had asked for that. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE THREE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS, AS PRESENTED BY THE PORT AND THE STAFF AND AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. Councilmember Nordquist asked if the motion included all of the areas described and Councilmember Hall said it did. Councilmember Kasper asked why the entire CW zone.was brought into this, and Ms. BlO'ck repifed that someone redeveloping Andy's Marina, for instance, or some other place may want to include some moorage, and there did not seem to .be reasons to preclude an app·l icant from appiying to' include that kind of moorage. She said the original .applicati'on included the· entire. are·a... · Councilmember Jaech asked.if this was only a Code change and ricit approval of what the Port is doing, and Ms. Block said· that was correct. Mr. Eames stated that the Department of Ecology which acts as a supervisor in shoreline matters has indicated this is not a proper subject for a variance and it could only be done by a Code change. Mr. Carpenter added that they had asked for a Code change because the Department .of Ecology indicated they would have to have it. Mr. Eames stated that if the Council were goin'g to say this particular Code amendment \~ould only apply to certain properties in the City they would have to have reason for distinguishing this property from the others in the CW zone because at some point the City made the determination that properties in the CW zone are similar and therefore should be treated similarly.· So, to limit it further, he said they would have to make a differentiation in the CW zone between the Port area and the Laebugten area. Councilmember Kasper thought a valid limit may be to areas abutting CG or BC zones. A F:OLL CALL VOTE ~JAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, lHTH ALL COUNCILMEMBERS VOTING YES. Mr. Carpenter added that what the Council was doing was to make this Code more like other cities' shorelines codes. MAYOR Mayor Naughten announced.that he;had;received a· letter from Po1i~e'Chi~f Mar1o:F6ster stating his intent to retire on•.March 31, 1984 .. Councilmember Mordquist asked if it was the Mayor's intent, before publishing to fill the positiOn, to' consider a change in organization, thinking perhaps of a Public Safety Director.·· Mayor Naughten·said that'will be discussed at the February 25 Mayor/Council workshop. Mayor Naughten advised that on February 16 ·he wi:ll be attending the A~JC Legislative Conference in Olympia, and he invited any of the Council ·tc join him. \ Mayor Naughten announced a brief Executive Session following this meeting to discus~ recent developments in the labor negotiations. · ! • • Student Representative Brian Stewart asked when questions should be in for the upc6~in~ questionnaire, what they should be about, and if the results will be back before the retreat. Mayor Naughten responded that they shou1d all be in by the end of February and should be the kind of questions the members feel are importarit for them as planners in making.decisions for the City, and possibly about some of tl1e issues now before the Council. He expected that the results would be back by the time of the retreat. Councilmember Hall acknowledged receipt of a letter from Aleta Mueller, an independent contractor in the recreation field, who highly praised Risa Eckes who recently terminated her employment with the City. Ms. Mueller commented on the organization, cooperation, and supportive attitude of Ms. Eckes, but she a.lso commented that the combined efforts and enthusiasm ·of everyone working in the Parks and Recreation Department make it the smoothest running recreation program she has seen. · Councilmember Hall noted that there is another bill in the legislature providing for six months' disabtlity leave equivalent to what the LEOFF I people receive, and a person could earn more than his regular salary because there would be no deductions. She suggested legislators might be written to let them know the Councilmembers' thoughts on it. Council President Jaech noted that next week's agenda has numerous hearinas on it, anri she suggested moving the hearing on· covering Yost Pool to March 6. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO MOVE THAT ITEM TO MARCH 6. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Jaech noted that the February 21 Council meeting will be a "town hall" type of meeting at Meadowdale so there will be no agenda items on that agenda and no Consent Agenda items except for roll call and approval of the previous meeting's minutes. January 31, 1984 -continued Council President Jaech distributed to the Council her proposed committee appointments. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ACCEPT THE LIST OF COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS AND WHEREVER RESOLUTIONS OF .CONFIRMATION ARE REQUIREq THAT THEY BE SENT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper asked, regarding the selection of another Councilmember on February 2, if new nominations can be made when that meeting commences. He was advised by the City Attorney that any one Councilmember can make a nomination, but if the Council does not elect a new member and the decision goes to the Mayor, the Mayor must select from the four people previously nominated. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive Session at l0:2o·p.m. ~~ ~ IRENE VARNEY ~ity Clerk LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor February 2, 1984 -Special Meeting A special meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten in the small Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Jo-Anne Jaech Jack Wilson John Nordquist Laura Ha 11 Bill Kasper Lloyd Ostrom ABSENT Brian Stewart, Student Rep. STAFF PRESENT Bobby Mills, Acting Public Works Dir. Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Jo Pendergast, Council Resource Person Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk The purpose of this meeting was for the Council to continue voting to fill the vacant position on the Council. Mayor Naughten noted that the candidates were limited to those who applied, and the Council had nominated four, but their voting now was down to. two. Mr. Tanaka noted that a majority of the Council could vote to nominate any of the other three who had applied. Councilmember Nordquist thought the Council should have some empathy for the people involved, and he thought the ballots should be limited to ten. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO TAKE FIVE BALLOTS AND IF A PERSON WAS NOT ELECTED TO TAKE A TEN-MINUTE RECESS AND THEN TAKE FIVE ADDITIONAL BALLOTS AND AT THAT TIME IF A PERSON WAS NOT ELECTED, TO DECIDE THEN WHAT TO DO. MOTION CARRIED .. The voting commenced, with five ballots taken, a recess, and then another five ballots, with neither of the candidates getting a majority vote. In all the ballots the results were Dave Earling with three votes and Barry Birch with three votes. Councilmember Kasper requested that the City Attorney again advise the Council of their options. Mr. Tanaka advised that they could continue ·on voting, or that they could stop voting and the Mayor could make the appointment from one of the four candidates the Council nominated, after this evening, and if the Mayor should ·not make the appointment the Council could still do it if the Mayor did not act before they did. He said by majority vote the Council could vote to nominate others and then take a vote, or they could vote by majority to consider either of the other two the Council had so far nominated. Councilmember Nordquist thought the process they had used should be reviewed in the future. He said it has been very trying for those involved and he expressed his sympathy to them for having to sit through this kind of procedure. He thought the most appropriate thing to do would be to move to adjourn and let the Mayor make the decision. He hoped the Mayor's deliberation would be between the two candidates, Mr. Birch and Mr. Earling, as the Council could not reach a majority on one or the other but the Mayor knew how the Council felt. Councilmember Nordquist said he would not be comfortable starting down the list again. Mayor Naughten said he would hope the Council would make the decision but if it was left to him he would review the people who were nominated for this ballot and make a decision which he thought to be best for the City and the Council. He advised the Council that they would have to trust his judgment, and he would select from the four. Councilmember Ostrom said he agreed with Councilmember Nordquist that they should adjourn and leave it to the Mayor. Councilmember Kasper thought they should reopen nominations completely and if the Mayor moved in the meantime that would be fine. He thought .any of the candidates who had applied for this position or the one in December would be fine, but he thought they should submit new letters. He ·Sa id the Council had a chance to correct the process. He had advocated th~ sin~le vote and he said maybe he was wrong (selecting one Councilmember at a time instead of selecting two when it W?S known that there would be two vacancies). He noted that this was not a matter of personalities but was a matter of balance. Councilmember Hall said they had tested the democratic process and had the luxury and responsibility of interviewing and talking and being lobbied for candidates of high caliber. She agreed with Councilmember Kasper. Councilmember Wilson thought that basically, even though they had stretched the system some, none of them had anything to be ashamed of, and they had voted their convictions and had I I I I I