11/10/1986 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
NOVEMBER 18, 1986 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 1986
A special meeting (because of Veterans' Day holiday) 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 salute.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor
Bobby Mills, Pub. Wks. Supt,
Laura Hall, Council Pres.
Peter Hahn, Comm. Svs. Director
Steve Dwyer
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Jo -Anne Jaech
Dan Prinz, Police Chief
Bill Kasper
Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr.
John Nordquist
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Lloyd Ostrom
Charles Day, Acctg. Supervisor
Jack Wilson
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Tom Peterson, Student Rep.
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards, Recorder
Councilmember Hall raised a point of order. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
JAECH, TO ADD ITEM (J), APPROVAL OF 1986-1987 POLICE SUPPORT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, TO
THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items (B) and (D) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved
items on the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
(C) SET DECEI4BER 16, 1986 FOR HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF 10 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH MODIFICATIONS AT 1100 DALEY PL. (APPLICANT:
HANCHETT FAMILY/P-6-84)
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR 10 EXECUTE ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH URS CORPORATION FOR
SHELL CREEK/CHASE LAKE DRAINAGE SUBBASIN STUDY ($82,500)
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO EXECUTE TEMPORARY UTILITY EASEMENT WITH DENNY'S, INC. ($500)
(II) CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF PERSONNEL MANAGER TO MEBT BOARD
(I) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RONALD LEE DUN (DOLLAR AMOUNT NOT
STATED
(J) APPROVAL OF.1986-1987 POLICE SUPPORT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 1986 (ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Hall noted that the name "Demeroutes" on page 5 is spelled
D-E-M-E-R-O-U-T-I-S. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 650 AUTHORIZING INTERFUNU LOAN FROM LID GUARANTY FUND FOR PURPOSE OF PAYING
CITY'S SHARE OFF SNUCUM-BUILUING I1EM (U) ON 111E CONSENT AGENDA_
*Councilmember Nordquist expressed his surprise regarding the 18% interest rate the City will be
charged should it opt to make installment payments. Councilmember Jaech said the State auditors
informed the City of Lynnwood it could not give away or make use of its funds free of charge.
*See Council Minutes of November 18, 1986
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if Lynnwood was advancing money to the City. Councilmember
Jaech replied affirmatively.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE ITEM (D). MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilmember Ostrom said he did not have a" opportunity to remove Item (G) on the Consent Agenda
before the motion was made. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO
RECONSIDER ITEM (G) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
SET DATE FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
nr-nur cT Tn r'viumn -r1F KnnlrJlnr rn WW_1TJ rhMML'U r't Ai IICC AT 961-A _ 1QhTP ST- S.W- (AI-20-8fi/APPFL--
Councilmember Ostrom noted that several Councilmembers will not be in attendance at the December
2, 1986 Council meeting. Fie recommended that the issue be discussed with a full quorum.
Mayor Naughten inquired about the'time parameters. City Clerk Jackie. Parrett said the appeal was
received on November 3, 19B6 so December 2, 1986 would just be within the thirty -day period.
City Attorney Scott Snyder inquired if Staff has contacted the appellant to see if he would ob-
ject to an extension. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block replied negatively. She said
Staff could do so if the Council so desired. Mr. Snyder suggested that a date certain be set and
that the appellant be contacted to see if he had any objection to the extension.
Councilmember Ostrom suggested that the hearing date be set in January.
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE ITEM (G). MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION. OF STAFF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: GIL THIRY BUILDING_
PERMIT
Councilmember Dwyer said .the appeal by Staff of the Hearing Examiner Decision is the first appeal
of its kind to appear before the Council since his tenure. He said there are three approaches
the Council could take into consideration: 1) allow Staff in their official capacity to appeal
any decision, 2) preclude .Staff in their official capacity from appealing any decision, or 3)
allow certain Staff members.in their official capacity under certain conditions to appeal deci-
sions.
Councilmember. Dwyer noted for,tileaudiences' benefit that his intention was not to preclude any
Staff member individually as a resident of the City from appealing any decision.
Councilmember Dwyer expressed concern that if Staff is allowed to appeal a decision, it will put
Staff in a position of being party to an action, as well as an advocate, with contrary interests
to at least one .citizen in the community who is party to the action. He said it also puts the
City employees and resource persons in a position of being party to an action that the Council is
requested to render a decision on, adding that it would be unrealistic to expect a citizen observ-
ing the appeal process to view the answers of Staff as neutral or unbiased. He said he also
thought it was wrong for any citizen to find himself in an adversary relationship with the City.
Councilmember Dwyer recommended that a policy decision regarding Staff appeals be made.
Councilmember Hall said Staff has the right to appeal, and the Council has the right of refusal
to hear the appeal. Councilmember Dwyer said Staff individually as citizens, and not under the
aegis of the City, have the right to appeal. He said, however, the City should not selectively
accept or reject appeals because, then, all citizens would not be equally treated for reasons
that would not be apparent until a decision was rendered. lie said that a policy decision must be
made to avoid difficulties and hard feelings in the corrnnunity and to avoid putting the Council in
a position of being unable to make a sound decision.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if an appeal by Staff to the Council has ever been raised. Ms.
Block replied negatively.
Councilmember Ostrom concurred with Councilmember Dwyer's viewpoint. He said a policy decision
could be made regarding Staff appeals, but he expressed concern that an appeal was presently
before the Council and it would be made after the fact.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Paye 2 NOVEMBER 10, 1986
Mayor Naughten said he, also, concurred with Councilmember Dwy.er's viewpoint.
Councilmember Kasper requested the City Attorney's opinion because he said the decision the Coun-
cil renders regarding the appeal by Staff could affect subsequent appeals.
-City Attorney Scott Snyder said the Council has total control over its procedure because: 1) it
establishes the appeal procedure by ordinance and has the discretion to amend the ordinance as it
sees fit, 2) if the Council prohibits Staff from appealing, there is no one else who has an inter-
est to pursue the matter except the City, who is in a position to deny legal funding to pursue a
legal appeal.
Mr. Snyder noted that Chapter 18 is a great deal different in that there is no procedure for
notifying neighbors and other residents. He said the City, to a certain extent, can be seen as
representing the public interest because no one else -is informed of the issuance of a permit.
Mr. Snyder said the Council has full discretion to accept or deny the appeal and to amend the
Code if is wished to clarify it. He recommended that the policy be uniform and applied equally
in all cases.
Councilmember Ostrom recommended, in the absence of a policy, that the appeal be accepted. Coun-
cilmember Kasper concurred.
COUNCILMEMBER DW'YER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER .OSTROM, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S ORDINANCE REGARDING APPEALS TO PROHIBIT STAFF FROM APPEALING ARCHITECTUR-
AL DESIGN BOARD OR HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
Mr. Snyder inquired if the motion directed itself to the Community Development Code as a whole.
Councilmember Dwyer stated that his motion included the Community Development Code with the under-
standing that the ordinance could be corrected it if was not workable. The seconder agreed.
MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST, TO ACCEPT THE STAFF APPEAL AND
HOLD THE HEARING ON NOVEMBER 18, 1986 AS SET. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Dwyer said Ire voted in favor of the motion because if there was a party who wanted
to appeal the decision and failed to do so because Staff had raised an appeal, they would be
unable to do so.
CONTINUED COUNCIL DISCUSSION .OF PRIVATIZATION VERSUS CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SECONDARY
SEWER TREATMENT
Community Services Director Peter Hahn introduced Dr. [Ion Doctor and David Haworth, Arthur
Young & Co.; Mary Hughes; Yeasting & Hughes Associates; and Alan Dashen, Vice -President of
Seattle -Northwest Securities Corporation.
Mr. Hahn referred to the Schedule for Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements, noting that the
planning phase has been completed and that the design phase is now in progress.
He reported that on October 21, 1986, the Council approved a contract: with Mr. Alan Dashen to
conduct a feasibility analysis comparing the economic costs of private ownership (privatization)
vs. public ownership and conventional revenue bond financing. Ile said the study has been dis-
tributed to the Council. Mr. Dashen will make a presentation of the study.
Mr. Hahn said he reviewed a report from Goldman, Sachs & Co. which concluded that private
ownership, under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, did not.prove advantageous.
Mr. Dashen said most privatization studies list three benefits of privatization: 1) tax bene-
fits, 2) construction cost savings, and 3) operating cost savings.
Mr. Dashen said that the lax Reform Act of 1986 has drastically changed the economics of
privatization: the 10% tax credit and accelerated depreciation of a plant have been eliminated,
and the tax break for private ownership has been reduced.
�r EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 NOVEMBER 10, 1986
Mr. Dashen reported that there is a lower state volume cap for bonds. He suggested that the
City immediately submit its request if it wishes to issue private activity bonds to fund a pri-
vately owned plant. He said private activity bonds are not quite as tax exempt as municipal
bonds because there is an alternative minimum tax that is applied to private activity bonds that
is not applied to municipal bonds. Mr. Dashen said the bond and tax effects have had negative
consequences on the benefits of privatization.
He reviewed the results of the study with the Council, noting that the present value of the total
costs for municipal, ownership and conventional financing is $51.7 million. Under private owner-
ship, the present value of the costs to Edmonds is $63 million (23% higher). He said even under
a variety of changing assumptions, the conventional alternative remains less expensive than
privatization.
Mr. Dashen said he assumed a 15% equity ownership in the study he conducted. He said equity
ownership is significant because a city should look for a financial commitment from a private
owner/operator to a project, and a private owner must have an at -risk .position in accordance
with IRS regulations.
Councilmember Kasper noted that equity was reflected in the municipal ownership scenario for
comparison purposes only. Mr. Dashen said there was no equity in the municipal case; it was
funded out of debt. He. said the 15% equity taxes and financing applied to tine private ownership
scenario only.
Mr. Dashen said even under the assumption that a similar 50% construction grant was available
to a privatizer as to a publicly owned plant, the present value cost of the life of the project
would be approximately 14.6% higher than a municipal ownership case. Assuming a 15% equity case
for a privately owned plant, the lifetime costs were approximately 21.3% higher than a municipal
ownership case.
Councilmember Kasper referred to page 13 of the Dashen report. He noted that the residual
value was zero. lie inquired if there was no repurchase requirement at the end of the contract
term. Mr. Dashen replied affirmatively. He noted that the private owner would not derive any
benefit if he sold the plant to a city. Councilmember Kasper inquired what the next position
would be, assuming an la% figure. Mr. Dashen said the residual value was assumed at 10%. At
the end of the contract term, the assumption was made that a city would buy the plant. The pur-
chase price is an unknown factor because if it was known, it would negate the depreciation bene-
fits. Mr. Dashen said if the value of the plant at the end of the term is nominal, the benefit
will be the city's. Conversely, if the plant has a high value, it will be to the city's detri-
ment and to the benefit of the privatizer.
Mr. Dashen said the study assumed a $40 million cost for municipal ownership and 20% construc-
tion cost for private ownership. The present value service fee was calculated at $55.7 million,
or approximately a 7.8% penalty over municipal ownership.
Mr. Dashen noted that the construction time can be expedited under a design/build scenario.
Mr. Hahn added that a privatizer is precluded from building and bringing in his own labor force
at a very lost cost because the Joint Development Act requires that prevailing wages are paid.
Mr. Dashen said a 21.3% penalty would be imposed on 15% equity bonds to a privatizer if the
investment tax credit was reinstated; if only the investment tax credit was received, a 7% penal-
ty would be imposed.
Ms. Hughes said she reviewed Mr. Dashen's report and felt he did an excellent job. However,
she said she did feel some of the assumptions were weighted in favor of privatization: a grant
would be provided to a privatizer if a city received a grant; she questioned whether a 15% equity
ownership would be adequate; she questioned whether an 8.75% rate on the taxable bond for the
privatizer would be a high enough rate to assume; she questioned whether construction costs could
be reduced by 20%. Ms. Hughes said taking into consideration all of the assumptions, a city
would pay $10 to $15 million more under privatization than it would if it owned the plant.
Mr. Haworth, partner in charge of general management at Arthur Young & Co., said there are a
number of ways that the private sector can become involved in assisting the public sector to
deliver their public services. He said it would be to the benefit of public entities to consider
the full range of advantages and to select the ones that make the most sense.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 NOVEMBER 10, 1986
Mr. Haworth said because experts can and do disagree on hypothetical situations, Arthur Young &
Co. believes the proof of any approach is in the real world of putting deals together and making
them work.
Dr. Doctor noted that the three forms of privatization before the Council are: 1) service con-
tract, 2) public ownership with contract operations, and 3) public or private ownership with
lease arrangements.
Dr. Doctor noted that the effects on interest rates as a result of tax reform are uncertain at
the present time. He said the best guess that he has heard is that short-term interest rates
will decrease and long-term interest rates will increase, and that the gap between tax exempt
debt and taxable debt will 'narrow over time..
Dr. Doctor said despite the lax Reform Act, there are still significant savings through
privatization in any of its forms, even though the difference between the three major types of
privatization has been diminished. He said recent analysis indicates a new present value savings
of 15% relative to the public ownership bond approach. Tax benefits have become less important
under tax reform than before. As a result, firms are stressing good business economics rather
than tax benefits. He said present proposals for privatization closely analyze the uses of tax-
able debt. Service fee grants that are authorized by the Joint Development Act can increase the
benefits of privatization. These grants are available for a privatized project but not for a
publicly funded project.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if Dr. Doctor was stating that the benefit of service fee grants
was not included in the study by Mr. Dashen. Dr. Doctor said Mr. Dashen did take service fee
grants into account, but they were bonded on an equivalent construction fee grant. Dr. Doctor
said that is not the concept of the service fee grant that is provided under the law. Mr. Hahn
noted that yearly service fee grants based on the total service fee are not available. He said
the. Department of Ecology (00E) has never given operating grants but has given capital grants.
Ile said there is no reason to expect that a privatizer will receive preferential treatment on a
grant over a municipally -owned plant. Ile said DOE has said if there is departure from past
practices, treatment should be equally applied to municipally funded projects.
Dr. Doctor stated that Section 6 of the Joint Development Act provides specifically for the award
of service fee grants to privatized projects. The grant, he said, is awarded to the city and
not to the privatizer. Ile said there are technical problems with the Centennial Clean Water Act,
i.e., whether that money can specifically be used for the service fee grants that are authorized
by the Joint Development Act. Technical amendments, he said, will be offered by the Department
as a part of the cleanup amendments in the next session of the legislature. Dr. Doctor said he
attended a meeting last week with the City of Lynnwood, Federal Environmental Protection Agency,
State Department of Ecology, and Chuck Lean, Assistant Attorney General. Mr. Lean stated at that
meeting that the DOE would endorse the cleanup amendments for the service fee grants in the Cen-
tennial Clean Water Act. Dr. Doctor said it is entirely possible that there will be a correspond-
ing debt service fee grant for publicly funded projects. Mr. Hahn read a portion of Section 6 of
the Joint Development Act into the record as follows: "If service fee grants are given, these
shall be given and/or to defray a part of the payments it makes to the service provider under
service agreements if such uses are permitted under the Grant Alone Program". Mr. Hahn noted
that the Grant Alone Program is the Centennial Clean Water Act, which is for capital construction
grants. Ile said there may possibly be service fee grants for the debt service portion.
Ms. Hughes noted that Mr. Dashen did take into account in his study that a 50% construction
debt service grant will be available under privatization.
Mr. Haworth said there is a strong possibility that grants may be available for privatizers for
more than 50% of the service fee and not for municipally -owned projects. Councilmember Dwyer
inquired why that scenario could expect to exist for more than one legislative session before
there was an uproar amongst municipalities who had chosen the conventional route and found them-
selves at a disadvantage. Dr. Doctor concurred that municipalities would protest if that scenar-
io took place. Ile said, however, that Andrea Batty Riniker of DOE is strongly in favor of the
service fee grant because more communities can be covered more quickly with a service fee grant
or debt service grant than with constructions grants.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired if service fee grants cover operations. Dr. Doctor replied affirma-
tively.
E:DMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 NOVEMBER 10, 1986
Councilmember Kasper noted that Dr. Doctor's report made reference to variable rates. Dr. Doctor
said the different variables must be considered cumulatively when analyzing them to the market-
place. He said Arthur Young & Co. believes that privatization offers greater interest rate flexi-
bility than public ownership does. lie said that private owners' equity contributions under tax
reform are likely to be minimal. The IRS does not require that a.privatizer invest any specif-
ic amount of equity for service contract privatization arrangements. Full service arrangements
optimize operating costs if the plant is designed, built and operated by the same firm even if it
is publicly owned, i.e., 15-30% savings as a result of design and construction savings;
fast -track construction schedules are 25-35% shorter; operating costs are reduced by 10-30%.
He said a city can have a zero -cost purchase option if the.privatizer uses taxable debt. He
added that service fee grants are likely to favor private ownership.
Mr. Haworth said Arthur Young & Co. .strongly believes, and their experience to date clearly
indicates, that savings remain achievable through private sector involvement. The firm thinks
the best test is to move from studies to the marketplace. He urged the City not to preclude the
fullest possible ranges of savings available to it.
Mayor Naughten thanked the panelists for their contributions.
Mr. Dashen said research has been conducted and it has consistently been found that
privatization does not work on an economic basis.
Mr. Hahn said that Chandler, Arizona., which privatized its wastewater treatment plant, is
leaning towards conventional financing of its water filtration plant because of economic conse-
quences of tax reform. lie reminded the Council that the City would receive a $2 million grant if
it pursues its present course.
Councilmember Kasper inquired how much the design would cost the City in excess costs in the
future. Mr. Hahn said the City will benefit under municipal ownership if it selects qualified
people to design, manage, construct, etc., the project.
Councilmember Hall thanked the panelists for their participation. She noted that the Council is
charged with the tax payers' dollars and must expend them wisely.
* Councilmember Nordqui'st expressed his appreciation, as a vendor, to Ms. Hughes, Dr. Doctor, and
Mr. Haworth for attending the meeting.
Councilmember Jaech noted that a motion was previously made to proceed with the design phase.
Councilmember Kasper recommended that the design team be carefully chosen to avoid future con-
flicts.
Councilmember Dwyer asked what was preventing the Council from making a decision. Councilmember
Ostrom recalled that the Council had previously decided not to pursue privatization.
Mr. Hahn said Staff will receive proposals from design and construction management firms by Fri-
day. He said he will contact the Mayor, Councilmember Nordquist, and Councilmember Wilson within
two to three weeks to convene the consultant selection committee to interview three to five quali-
fied design and construction management firms.
Councilmember Wilson said he is prepared to pursue conventional funding. He said the evidence
that was presented was very clear. Ile concurred with Mr. Kasper that one entity should be held
accountable for the actions of the development and growth of the project to completion. Council -
member Kasper said he felt the evidence was one-sided.
Councilmember Ostrom said the information that was presented by Mr. Dashen and Arthur Young &
Co. was good information, but much of it is still conjecture. He said the Council must follow
Mr. Dashen's recommendations if it makes a decision in the near future. He said he appreciated
the information that was provided by Arthur Young & Co.
The meeting recessed at 9:57 p.m. and reconvened at 9:09 p.m.
*See Council Minutes of November 18, 1986
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 NOVEMBER 10, 1986
1
BUDGET WORK SESSION (REVIEW POLICE AND FIRE DEPTS.)
Fire Chief Jack Weinz reviewed the Fire Department budget with the Council.
Chief Weinz noted that the fire boat was utilized on Saturday to Whidbey Island (under Fund
624).
Police Chief Dan Prinz reviewed the Police Department budget with the Council.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired about the agencies that the City contracts with for security.
Chief Prinz said the City contracts. with the Port of Edmonds and Stevens Memorial Hospital.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if security personnel are considered as Edmonds officers. Chief
Prinz said they are considered as security officers for Edmonds and not police officers. He said
they are included in the support services contract. They wear the same uniforms as police offi-
cers but wear a badge that says "security".
Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL -
MEMBER HALL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion ensued regarding animal control increases. Councilmember Kasper noted that the fees
increased by .05% in 1985 and 6% in 1986--only 6.5% in two years.
Councilmember Kasper requested that the police vehicles be analyzed later in the budget process.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Mayor
Naughten ruled the motion out of order and no action was taken.
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten requested confirmation of David Koenig. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF DAVID KOENIG TO POSITION 5 ON THE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE NOVEMBER 5, 1990.
Mayor Naughten noted that he attended a commission on Sunday for the Support 7 vehicle.
COUNCIL
Councilmember Ostrom noted that two hearings were set on November 18, 1986: a Hearing Regarding
the Existence of Nonconforming use Rights for Property at 8339 - 212th St. S.W. and a Hearing on
Appeal of Hearing Examiner Recommendation on Resolution to Vacate Unbuilt Right -Of -Way of a
Portion of Sixth Ave. S. Council President Hall said she has recommended that the Hearing on
212th be scheduled on December 2 or December 16, 1986. COuncilmember Dwyer inquired why. Coun-
cilmember Jaech said because the agenda is full and because the Council set the hearing date, it
can reschedule it. Council President Hall said because the Hearing on Appeal of Hearing Examiner
Recommendation is via appeal, it must be set no later than December 16. Councilmember Dwyer
inquired if the applicant has been apprised that a recommendation has been made to reschedule the
hearing. Council President Hall replied negatively, noting that Staff has been apprised.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO RESCHEDULE THE HEARING REGARD-
ING THE EXISTENCE OF NONCONFORMING USE RIGHTS FOR PROPERTY AT 8339 - 212TH ST. S.W., AND CONSID-
ERATION OF THE APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.630 OF THE COMMUNI-
TY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING DRIVE-IN BUSINESS USES TO DECEMBER 16, 1986 OR LATER. MOTION CAR-
RIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER OPPOSED.
Council President Hall announced that the Election of Council President has been rescheduled to
January 6, 1986 because a full quorum will not be present on December 2, 1986.
Councilmember Kasper said he will submit a line of questioning next week that he would like Dr.
Ron Doctor of Arthur Young & Co. to address regarding privatization that he feels has not yet
been answered.
Councilmember Jaech requested that the Presentation on Proposed 208th Street LID by City of
Lynnwood and School District be rescheduled in the interest of concluding discussions regarding
the 1987 budget. Mayor Naughten recommended that the presentation be rescheduled on January 9,
1987.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES .
Page 7 NOVEMBER 10, 1986
Councilmember .Nordquist submitted a letter to the Council that lie received from Bob & Sandy Gales
requesting amendment to Ordinance 2103. Ile said they own a flower brokering business on 3rd rind
Bell but are unable to park their cars on the street. He noted Ordinance 2103 does not permit
the issuance of parking permits to nonresidents. He suggested that an amendment.to the ordinance
be made to allow.business owners to park downtown. Police Chief Dan Prinz said none of the other
businesses are.allowed parking privileges. He said if that privilege is extended to the Gates,
it would have to be applied to everyone. City Clerk Jackie Parrett said the ordinance only pi`o-
vides parking for residents. Councilmember Nordquist recommended that the issue be discussed,on
January 20, 1987. .
Councilmember Dwyer said he felt the issue'regarding privatization versus conventional financing
has evolved from optimism to fantasy. He said he hoped .the issue is resolved in the near future.
Councilmember Kasper said he questioned not only the issue of privatization but was interested in
how the design process will be set forth to the selection committee. He said that a firm should
be selected to manage the project through completion whether the project is privatized or riiot
to avoid conflicts similar to events that took place during the Yost Pool project. Mayor NaugFpt-
en inquired how a firm should be selected. Councilmember Kasper said RFP's should be solicited
for a total proposal. Council President Hall concurred. Councilmember Ostrom inquired who would
write such an RI-P. He inquired how the Council would -choose who would get the award for the 8e-
sign phase alone. Ile noted that a description is not in existence 4or the design phase.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
These minutes are subject to November 18, 1986 approval.
4
JACQUELINE G. PARRETT, City Clerk
5� . -�' 4IM444A�'
ARRY NAUGHTEN, Mayor
LDMONDS.CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 NOVEMBER 10, 1986