Loading...
10/08/1985 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO OCTOBER 15, 19B5 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 8, 1985 Work meeting The regular meeting of the Edmonds City. Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa- lute. PRESENT ABSENT' STAFF PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Jo -Anne Jaech Art'Housler, Admin. Svcs. Dir. John Nordquist Bobby Mills, Pub. Works Supt. Steve Dwyer Peter Hahn, Community. Svcs. Dir. Laura Hall Mary Lou Block, Planning Mgr. Bill Kasper Steve Simpson, Parks & Rec. Mgr. Lloyd Ostrom Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jack Wilson Caroll Palmer Maurer, Recorder Tamara Schwartze, Student Rep. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Councilmember Nordquist read aloud .a letter from Dolores Uhlman, Assistant Principal of Edmonds High School, introducing Tamara Schwartze as the new Edmonds City Council Student Representa- tive. On behalf of the City Council, he welcomed Ms. Schwartze. CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of Minutes of October 1, 1985 (C) Report on Bids Opened October 1, 1985 and Authorization to Award Contract to Truck Center Corp. for Truck ($9,018.28), Case Power & Equipment for Trailer ($7,160.90) and Brim Tractor for Backhoe ($32,775) (0) Set Date for Hearing Appeal of Hearing Examiner Denial of Appeal of Issuance of Modification to a Building Permit (Appellant: Bob Boye) (Suggested Date: November 4, 1985) (E) Report of Bid Opening and Authorization to Award Contract for Addition to Senior Center and Seawall Improvements to Columbia Construction Co. ($95,079.60) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 Councilmember Hall stated that the heading for the meeting minutes of September 24, 1985 should state "Council Meeting Minutes". She also requested that these minutes reflect the fact that she was acting as Mayor Pro Tem. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO AP- PROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED PRESENTATION BY EDMONDS CHARITY FESTIVAL OF FASHION Mr. Steve Simpson, Parks and Recreation Manager, appealed to the Council to establish a fund for children of needy families in the community. He noted that the Edmonds Charity Festival of Fashion had decided to pledge all the revenue from this year's fund raising event to young people in need who wish the use of City services. He continued that the Edmonds Charity Festival of Fashion had asked the City to establish the Edmonds Youth Scholarship Fund to receive money to pro- vide financial assistance to people in need who are under age 18. The Festival of Fashion had requested that the fund be disbursed at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Division staff, using criteria developed by them. Fie promised that the staff would develop guidelines and procedures to qualify people for scholarships, if this fund were established. Mr. Simpson request- ed the City Council to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance establishing the Edmonds Youth Scholarship Fund to receive donations that would be used to provide scholarships to chil- dren from families in financial need who wish to use City parks and recreation services. Mr. Simpson introduced Ms. Harriet Gravely, of the Edmonds Charity Festival of Fashion. She gave background information on this project, and noted that this year, Mayor Naughten would emcee the Festival of Fashion at the Puget Sound College of the Bible. Ms. Gravely pointed out that the purposes of the event were threefold: 1. They waInt the businesses in Edmonds to grow; 2. They want the clothiers to have more business, and. 3. It is a wonderful vehicle to support the community through a charity event. Ms. Gravely noted.that each year the charity would change. She displayed a copy of the brochure describing this year's event, and noted that there had been $7,000 worth of donations given so far to help defray the costs. She pointed out that any•donations were tax deductible, and added that this event was not sponsored by either the Main Streets Project nor by the Chamber of Com- merce. Mayor Naughten complimented Ms. Gravely for the effort she had put into establishing this program, and noted that it was a very worthy project. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAW UP AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE EDMONDS YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND TO RECEIVE DONATIONS FROM THE FUND RAISING FESTIVITIES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SCHOLARSHIPS TO CHILDREN FROM FAMILIES IN FINANCIAL NEED WHO WISH TO USE CITY PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING EXAMINER'S ANNUAL REPORT Mr. James Driscoll, Hearing Examiner, presented his annual report on the activities of his of- fice, as required by the City Code. He noted that last year, the Council had requested that the annual report be made during the fall, so that they could not only examine what had transpired during the year, but also ask pertinent budget questions. He gave a brief summary of the activi- ty that occurred from November, 1984 through the end of September, 1985. Mr. Driscoll also noted some proposed changes pertaining to land use mattersthat should be addressed within the Development Code. Mr. Driscoll also gave a few comments about the system as he interpreted it since its inceptlion five years ago. During the past year, Mr. Driscoll stated that 66 hearings had been conducted as follows: 33 Variances 15 Conditional Use Permits 4 Shorelines Management Requests 7 Preliminary Plat Requests 5 Administrative Appeals 2 Street Vacations / The year before,, 44 hearings were held. He noted that there had been a substantial increase in activity during (this time period. During the period from March, 1985 through the end of Septem— ber, over half o'f the year's total hearings were held. He noted that this broke down to almost eight hearings per month during the past six months. Mr. Driscoll added that during the past 12 months, there had been much more varied and complex hearings than during the past four years. In interpreting and deciding on making recommendations to the Council, he•has had the opportunity to use different sections of the Code pertaining to land use. Mr. Driscoll continued that during the past year he found a few shortcomings which should be brought to the attention of the Council: 1. Shorelines Management Permits Mr. Driscoll noted a contradiction in the Code. Section 20.100 of the Code gives him authority to make decisions on shorelines management issues. However, Section 20.55.030 of the Code requires him to make recommendations to the City Council for Shore- lines permits. Therefore, he is caught in a situation where hie does not know which procedure to follow. He has been following the decision making process. Mr. Driscoll requested the Council in some future meeting to discuss this option. lie was of the opinion, that it would be cleaner for the applicant to know which avenue would have to be pursued.. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 October 8, 1985 Mr. Snyder noted that the Planning Board would be meeting on October 9, 1985 to review the Shorelines Management provision of the Code. He suggested that the Council might wish to bring this item to the attention of the Planning Commission. 2. Conditional Use Permits for Temporary Buildings Section 17.70.101 deals with temporary buildings within the City of Edmonds. Mr. Driscoll noted that the Hearing Examiner may grant a conditional use permit, if needed. However, .it does not set forth whether the individual who is erecting the tempo- rary building must also obtain a conditional use permit. He stated that this Section gave the Building Department too much discretion where a temporary building may be involved, and was of the opinion that the language should be amended. He added that if a conditional use permit is needed for a temporary building, it should be written in that section of the Code. Mr. Driscoll noted that this issue had come up on two different occasions during the past year. 3. Zoning Standards for Business Use Mr. Driscoll noted that within the City of Edmonds, the Code contained a designation * for business use. However, there were no zoning standards set forth for this use. He was of the opinion that this should come under the purvue of Mary Lou Block or Duane Bowman. If interpretation were needed for a specific zoning section within the City, there should be some type of zoning standards. Mr.. Driscoll emphasized that this should be addressed in the Code. With regard to home occupation permits, one of the big issues had been whether or not the person applying had to be the property owner in order to be granted this usage. He was of the opinion that limiting home occupation permits to property owners might result in legal problems, because this might be interpreted as discrimination against individuals who were unable to purchase their own property. Mr. Snyder commented that home occupation permit rights are personal to the individual and do not pass with the property. Mr. Driscoll mentioned that the Hearing Examiner system was currently completing its fifth year. He noted that the novelty of this system had been removed and it was now a more methodical procedure for the community. The procedural inadequacies had been more or less corrected, and many of the cases were fairly well "cut and dried". Mr. Driscoll pointed out that there were many cases that had evolved into an interpretation of planning within the City. These mainly involve the preliminary plats, where the developer had one interpretation and the Planning Depart- ment a different one. Another area involved administrative appeals or requests where there was adamant opposition within the neighborhood. He noted that these cases were usually appealed to the Council. Mr. Driscoll believed that the appeal process created an opportunity for the community to have a hearing in which the facts were presented, and yet they ultimately had a chance for appeal to the City Council. Mr. Driscoll noted that there were several neighborhood activists who made the system much more honest, because they presented essential elements that needed consideration. He also stated that Duane Bowman, of the Planning Department, was a real asset to the City. Mr. Driscoll also be- lieved that the system was working well with the three components of the City, the developers and the public. Councilmember Dwyer commended Mr. Driscoll on the courtesy and fairness he had always exhibited during his hearings, and attributed the success of the Hearing Examiner process to his efforts. He noted that the Hearing Examiner system had become accepted due in no small part to Mr. Driscoll, and this was a tribute to him. Councilmember Hall asked if the public was being inhibited or impacted by the increases in hear- ings from 44 to 66 in one year. Mr. Driscoll responded that Ms. Block was in a better position to answer this question than he, because the Planning Department set the schedule. He added that there was an attempt to limit the hearings to five per night, twice a month. However, upon occa- sion, he would set up a special hearing either in the morning or on the third Thursday of the month. Ms. Block stated that there had not been any significant delays up to this point. Howev- er, as a result of the increase in cases that the Hearing Examiner is handling, during the past couple of months the time delay had been approximately six weeks. She noted that with this in- crease, there was a potential for significant delay. Councilmember Hall commented that the Council should plan in the event that the delay period became too long. Mr. Snyder pointed out *See October 15, 1985 Minutes. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 October 8, 1985 that the Council had appointed back up Hearing Examiners for Mr. Driscoll. Therefore, there was already potential for coverage. He noted that Mr. Driscoll had referred to Mr. Bowman as the person who has to prepare these cases. Ms. Block added that whenever there are more hear- ings, more staff time is involved. She made an appeal for more staffing to assist with this increasing caseload. Councilmember Kasper asked if the Hearing Examiner had occasion to read Council appeal deci- sions. Mr. Driscoll replied that he usually "heard by rumor". Ms. Block added that the Planning Department personnel made certain the Hearing Examiner received all the pertinent material in order to make an informed decision. It was really rare to have a case appealed to the City Coun- cil with new evidence introduced. Mr. Driscoll noted that the Planning Department acted as a conduit for him with regard to exhibits and pieces of evidence. Any correspondence pertaining to the case became part of the file and was presented as part of the packet before the meeting, or was introduced as an exhibit during the hearing. Mr. Driscoll noted that he utilized discretion' and did not use as an exhibit every piece of evidence presented to him. However, his findings contained each exhibit that was presented. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, THAT THE SHORELINES MANAGEMENT PERMITS ISSUE SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD, AND THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR TEMPORARY BUILDINGS AND THE ZONING STANDARDS FOR BUSI- NESS USE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2527 amending chapters 15 AND 16 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Councilmember Nohdquist stated he had suggested at a previous meeting that the Council "accept" ordinances, rather than "adopt" them. Councilmember Kasper noted that he had previously ab- stained from voting on this issue for the same reason. He also asked if the underlined wording was that which had been changed. Mr. Snyder responded that he was required to include the whole section when making an amendment. Mr. Snyder noted that the specific portions that were amended were set forth in the Highway 99 Report, and noted that everything that had been changed in the report was in the Ordinance. Mr. Snyder pointed out one exception in Section 16.60 of the Ordi- nance which discussed CG and CG-2 zones, but did not state they were two different zones. There- fore, he had added one sentence on page 16 that had not been in the recommendation to indicate that there were two distinct zoning categories. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2527 AMENDING CHAPTERS 15 AND 16, WITH THE CORRECTION INSERTED BY MR, SNYDER ON PAGE 16, AND THAT IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES 1.0 BE MADE, THEY COULD BE AMENDED BY MOTION. Councilmember Hall suggested that the word "allow" be substituted for "promote" under Item C, "Promotions", on page 16. Councilmember Ostrom was in agreement, and added that this statement was probably one of the most controversial in the whole report. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECOND- ED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO SUBSTITUTE THE WORD "ALLOW" IN PLACE OF "PROMOTE" ON PAGE 16 OF THE HIGHWAY 99 STUDY. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED.. It was noted that *Councilmember Jaech was absent. Councilmember Hall commented that on page six under l.a, "Policies", it stated that "the existing character of the downtown area should be maintained". However, on page five it discussed aging buildings as creating aesthetic problems. Mr. Snyder noted that both sentences were existing Code provisions. Councilmember Hall responded that this was a contradiction. However, she made no motion to amend. Councilmember Kasper added that he was not voting for this ordinance. Councilmember Dwyer suggested that this be handled apart from the Highway 99 Study. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM's MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO BRING TO THE NEXT MEETING A CONFORMED COPY OF ORDINANCE 2527 FOR PASSAGE. Councilmember Kasper stated he was voting against this whole ordinance because the Highway 99 Study had been "watered down so much that there was nothing left to it, and it would continue to be watered down". DISCUSSION OF INDEMNIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES AND APPOINTED/ELECTED OFFICIALS Mr. Housler gave background information on this topic, and noted that he had been informed earli- er this year there was no indemnification coverage for City employees, due to the changing cli- mate of the insurance, and if there were, it would cost approximately $10,000 for just the four engineers. As a result of this, the Management Team reviewed ordinances of other cities for indemnifying employees and appointed/elected officials. They had recommended that the City Attor- ney draft an ordinance for Council consideration. Mr. Snyder noted that there were a number of model ordinances in the packet, and that these ordinances were substitutes for insurance. He stated that Bellevue's ordinance served as the best model, as it was the most recent and also covered the important aspects of employee and appointed/elected official indemnification. Employ- ees were covered with the exceptions of fraudulent, criminal, dishonest or malicious actions. He added that if the City decided to sue the employee, that person was not I. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES *See October 15, 1985 Minutes. Page 4 October 8, 1985 I indemnified against the loss that was incurred. He noted that Bellevue also had a Condition of Representation, which meant that in consideration of the indemnification, the employee would offer his/her entire assistance in protecting himself/herself. He cautioned it was important to remember that the City and the employee were not one in the same, and mentioned the Solie mud slide case as an example. He added that if the employee were also sued, the City and the employ- ee were not the same person. Mr. Snyder would be prohibited from representing both the City and the employee in a case like this. Therefore, he suggested that the Council review and provide for the cost of representation. He noted that the ordinances indemnified against the cost of the defense of the suit, as well as any judgment or damages that would be incurred in the course of a judgment against the employee. Mr. Snyder added that by indemnification of the employee, that person was insulated. He noted that municipal employees, by the very nature of their positions, were subject to suits. In most cases, the employee would piggyback on the City's defense. Howev- er, this might cost the.employee in the form of personal savings. Therefore, he suggested that the Council indemnify employees against the cost of their defense when suit had been brought about as a result of carrying out their normal duties. He was also of the opinion that the Coun- cil should provide for an appropriation of the cost of the defense. Councilmember Dwyer stated he would like to have an assumption in the City ordinance that the City Attorney's office would provide representation for the employee. However, if in the opinion of the City Attorney, there were an ethical conflict situation created by representing both the employee and the City, the City would indemnify the employee at a rate not to exceed the rate * charged to the City by the City Attorney for handling the action. This would allow the employee to engage an attorney which required an amount of money greater than that charged to the City, but he would be free to do so at his own expense. Mr. Snyder was of the opinion that some of the model ordinances were overly broad in that they would cover grossly negligent employee actions. They exclude criminal conduct and malicious conduct. He stated that the grossly negligent or reckless conduct situations should be consid- ered before passage of the ordinance. Mr. Snyder noted that there may be situations where the City might want to sue an employee who has been grossly negligent in order to try to recover some of the costs incurred. Pragmatically, this might be in the form of the employee's homeowner's policy or automobile policy, because this would probably be where most of those suits would arise. Councilmember Hall asked if the determination of whether or not an official or an employee was acting within the scope of his employment on behalf of the City would be made by the City Attor- ney. Mr. Snyder stated that the Council would be appropriating or authorizing the funds. *Councilmember Dwyer suggested that it be a staff determination, appealable to the City. He contin- ued that if the employee were entitled to the cost of representation and the City were to wrongful- ly deny that representation, an attorney that he would engage would enter a claim against the City for his attorney's fees, pursuant to his employment. He commented that the Council would want to have a decision made that could be referenced by the employee in that circumstance. Mr. Snyder stated that there was a 30 day period after suit had been filed in which to answer. He suggested that the Council take a recommendation from him.or from the Risk Manager as to whether or not the employee was within the scope of his employment, but that the Council at its next meeting authorize the representation as they would any contract with an independent contractor. Councilmember Dwyer stated that this would be acceptable to him, and added that he merely wished the Council to make a decision that could be referenced later on, if they were to wrongfully deny someone the benefits to which they were entitled. Mr. Snyder noted that probably those employees with the most risk were the ones in most need of protection. The three categories of liability that came to his mind were: 1. police, 2. engineering/planning/building official categories, and 3. anyone who operates a motor vehicle or equipment. He pointed out that no planner or building official had been named in a suit to date. However, the Council should anticipate their being named in the future. He added that if insurance were available, it would give the City another pocket to look toward, because the City could sue the insurer and have another source from which to recoup the loss. Councilmember Ostrom noted that one of the of the Planning Board or the ADB were just that these people were not compensated in that the proposed ordinances were probably *See October 15, 1985 Minutes. concerns was that appointed officials such as members as liable as regular City employees. Mr. Snyder added any way for the services they render, and mentioned best applicable to those situations. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 October 8, 1985 Councilmember Dwyer stated that in instances where the claim may be frivolous, he would like in some way to encourage a counter claim for bringing such a suit, so that the City could somehow recoup the costs involved. Mr. Snyder suggested inserting a section which would subrogate the City to authorize recovery of claims in frivolous suits. Councilmember Hall noted that certain projects had been stalled or at least put on the back burn- er because of this impending liability, so it would behoove the Council to make the workplace a more secure place for the employee. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING THE SUGGESTIONS MADE TONIGHT FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL ADVISOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR ISSUING MEADOWDALE LID BONDS Mr. Housler gave members background information regarding this agenda item, and noted that in July of this year, the Council had authorized Yeasting Associates to conduct a marketing survey regarding issuance of Meadowdale LID bonds. Ms. Mary Hughes, on behalf of this firm, had recom- mended selling the bonds on October 15, 1985 by the "negotiated sale" method. He noted that the opening of the underwriting proposals which were mailed on October 4 would take place on October 15 in the office of Yeasting Associates. Councilmember Kasper and Accounting Supervisor Dimon would be present at this opening. He introduced Ms. Hughes, who was present to address her recom- mendation and answer any questions of the Council. Mary Hughes, 4548 - 89th Ave. S.E., Mercer Island Ms. Hughes discussed the two methods of selling bonds and presented a timetable for this financ- ing. She referred to the request for underwriting proposals which had been sent to seven firms on October 4, and noted that positive replies had already been received from four of the underwrit- ers. She mentioned that there was a strong demand for City of Edmonds bonds, due to the fact that the bond issue did not have a high ratio. Ms. Hughes added that the large number of residen- tial property owners was a plus when selling LID bonds. She stated that the results of the bid opening would be available to Council members for their October 15 meeting. The Council could then accept the bid and her firm would prepare for the bond closing of November 5. Councilmember Kasper asked Ms. Hughes to expand upon the advantage of the long term bond struc- ture which had been proposed. Ms. Hughes responded that the property owners had been given a 25 year period in which to pay off their assessments. The bonds had to be structured so that the last bond could not mature any sooner than two years after the last assessment was due, or 27 years. Her firm had broken this issue into three different groups. Only 4 percent of the assess- ments would be due each year. She noted that property owners pay off their assessments on the - average at a much higher rate than—dis. Her firm had therefore, made serial bonds that would be due each year in an exact amount and could not be paid any sooner or any later. She pointed out that usually LID bonds were structured as term bonds. They had attempted, by using the 4 percent rate per year, to fix about 40 percent,'or $400,000 of the bond issue into serial bonds, which would help to decrease the overall net interest rate. Structuring it in this way would minimize the impact of having a very long assessment period. Ms. Hughes noted that the remainder of the bonds still had to be structured as term bonds, because there was still the great unknown when property assessments would be paid. She predicted that when heavy assessment payments come in, the serial bonds would be first paid off, as'they come due. After that, the term bonds would be paid, which would lower the overall interest rate. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE YEASTING ASSOCIATES MARKETING RECOMMENDATION FOR ISSUING MEADOWDALE LID BONDS. MOTION CARRIED. PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION 629 REAFFIRMING CITY PRACTICE AND POLICY REGARDING VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF PARK LAND DEDICATION Councilmember Hall was concerned how this item got on the agenda, as she had been of the impres- sion that it was going to be considered by the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder gave background informa- tion on this issue, and noted that Councilmember Kasper had asked him in January of this year to review the City's current ordinance that established a development fee for contributions in lieu of park dedications. He noted that existing provisions of the City ordinances were in conflict with state law. Therefore, he had drafted a resolution designed to direct the staff to adminis- ter current ordinance provisions in accordance with current City policies and state law until such time as the Council had an opportunity to review the issue. This resolution would authorize the process which is currently being followed to preserve the contributions previously estab- lished by the City Council. He recommended that this resolution be adopted as an interim measure until such time as the Council had an opportunity to review the issue in more depth. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, FOR PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION 629. * MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED. Councilmember Kasper noted that the Council was "imposing voluntary things involuntarily, and that they were just making impact statements". Councilmember Dwyer added that this was something the Council should address. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES See October 15, 1985 Minutes. Page 6 October 8, 1985 MAYOR Mayor Naughten noted that the Edmonds Arts Commission had extended an invitation to attend a photo exhibit entitled "One Day in the Heart of Edmonds". He noted that this exhibit was on display in the Harbor Square Mall through October 31. The Mayor mentioned that the pipe trenches in front of the cemetery would be 98 percent complet- ed by Friday of this week. Mayor Naughten stated that he and Peter Hahn had attended a quality control seminar at Edmonds Community College on September 28, 1985. He had also attended with Art Housler the Association of Cities and Towns meeting recently, and discussion had centered upon the timely topic of "liabil- ity for cities". The Mayor commented that neither the City nor the Fire Department could make Medic 7 expen- ditures. Fire Department personnel were of the opinion that it would cost about $1,500, and noted that donations were being solicited through the Fire Department, if anyone felt so inclined. Mayor Naughten noted that Moby D's Restaurant, formerly Let's Eat, had applied for a liquor li- cense. If there were no objection, it should be approved. No objections were voiced. COUNCIL * Councilmember Hall suggested that the City host a hospitality booth, sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, at the National League of Cities Convention in Seattle December 7 - 11, 1985. She thought perhaps some high school students might like to become involved in hosting this hospitali- ty booth, and mentioned that the Chamber was interested in this endeavor. Mayor Naughten suggest- ed that the delegate and the alternate coordinate this activity. Councilmember Kasper asked Mr.. -Hahn for an update on the status of the water line improvements on Seamont Lane (Ms. Hockwalt). Mr. Hahn replied that the two member committee had decided the City should pay one half of the cost of improvements, and Ms. Hockwalt and anyone else she could get to participate would pay the.other half. At such time as Ms. Hockwalt approached the City with her share, the City would proceed to make the improvements. Councilmember Kasper requested that this item be included in the agenda for the first part of 1986, on the basis that if this agreement did not work, a LID would be imposed. He added that this situation was a fire hazard, and he would like an update report on this issue within a 90 day period. Mr. Hahn noted that the City had a water compensation plan that addressed inadequate fire flows city-wide. This issue could certainly be addressed as part of the water compensation plan. Councilmember Nordquist announced that Councilmember Jaech was in New England attending to some family matters. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT COUNCILMEMBER JAECH BE EXTENDED AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist noted that he had received a letter from the vessel ferry .service owner stating that the Edmonds Express excursion proposal was being abandoned. Councilmember Nordquist announced that the Mayor of Mountlake Terrace had invited the City Coun- cil to attend a joint meeting at Mountlake Terrace to discuss secondary treatment. He sent them. a letter stating that the Council was not prepared at this time to discuss secondary treatment in final resolution form. Councilmember Nordquist noted that Edmonds had a history of sewer and water relationships with Mountlake Terrace. He was of the opinion that the Council should dis- cuss some resolutions to this problem within the confines of their chambers before "taking it out on the street". Councilmember Nordquist noted that he would not be in attendance at the Mount- lake Terrace meeting. Councilmember Nordquist stated that a merchant .had asked when a rezone of the Westgate area would be conducted. It was his understanding that Westgate was second on the list, after the Highway 99 study. He had been told that the City's concern for Westgate would be multiple development. Councilmember Nordquist asked about the status of the Westgate study. Mr. Hahn responded that Westgate was indeed next on the list, and the 1986 budget should contain funding for a consultant, just like the consultant funding for the Highway 99 study. Councilmember Nordquist stated that there had been two withdrawals for the Council Assistant position, so the list had been narrowed to two candidates. He noted that the Mayor had invited the Council to join him for dinner next Tuesday evening and that discussion would include a progress report on the budget. Councilmember Kasper suggested it might be better to hold dinner meetings on the committee meeting evenings. Mayor Naughten suggested that the dinner could be rescheduled for October 22, so that intereviews could be conducted next week. Councilmember *See October 15, 1985 Minutes. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 October 8, 1985 Hall' requestedjreview information on these two candidates prior to the interviews. Councilmember Nordquist promised to mail this information to members this week. Councilmember Ostrom announced he had received a telephone call from someone living on 7th',Ave. S. regarding the barricade that was to be erected on that street. He noted that the barricade had been erected today. The concern was when the 60 day trial period would begin. This citizen wanted something in the record regarding an official date. Councilmember Ostrom stated for the record that today, October 9, 1985, was the first day of the 60 day trial period. lie noted that the closest Council meeting date to the conclusion of this trial period would be December 3, 1985, and that this item was already scheduled for review on that date. He added that the barricade would stay up until December 8, but the Council would discuss it on December 3. Councilmember Wilson noted.that the war memorial whichwas being moved and upgraded in the museum' was a $1,200 project. If anyone felt so inclined, they could donate, as well as spread the word among their friends. He also mentioned that some of the Councils in the Seattle area were becom- ing involved in world concerns, and forecast that our Council might at some point in the future be asked to join in this effort. Mayor Naughten commented that the City was often approached along this line, and it was his policy that the City Council did not endorse issues outside of the purvue of the City of Edmonds. Councilmember Dwyer cautioned that the Council did not actual- ly have a policy regarding this. It had never been phrased in terms of Council policy, nor had it been voted upon in that way. He suggested that if the Council wished to put this on the agen- da, it could beIvoted upon, after which the Council policy would be official with regard to out- side issues. Councilmember Wilson stated he would feel more comfortable if the Council had some kind of a policy on this. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m.. ZRETT, City Clerk LAITV S. HUGHTEN, Mayor EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 October 8, 1985