Loading...
08/01/1995 City Council8115195 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by -the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor Barbara Fahey, Council President Pro-Tem William J. Kasper, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember ABSENT Tom Petruzzi, Council President Michael Hall, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Miller, Police Chief Michael Springer, Fire Chief Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Paul Mar, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Superintendent Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Jim Walker, City Engineer Phil Olbrechts, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO-TEM FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS TO ADD AS ITEM 10A THE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 822 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 820 REGARDING THE ANNEXATIONS OF GATE/EATON AND SNOLINE/FORSHEE. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO-TEM FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCHLMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Myers pulled Item B and Council President Pro-tem Fahey pulled Item C. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM RICK LINDROS ($477.29), C���� 5 AND JENNIFER JACOBSEN (Amount Unknown) DRmR6� (E) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #952065 THRU #953935 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 24, A �RRRR� rs 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $288,027.35 1GRpfit'Or (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE MICROFICHE PRINTER/READER MACHINE FOR THE m p, WATER/SEWER SECTION FROM BELL & HOWELL ($2,757.69) R fR°�rXR CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 1 APPROVAL OF CELLANEOUS NDINGS OF FACT FROM HEARING F JULY 18, 1995, (G) ON HEARING EXASMINEECI DECISION TO O DENY A VARIANCE FOR A SHED TO BE LOCATED IN THE STREET SETBACK AT 22021 76TH AVE. WEST (Applicant/Appellant: Mark Travers / File No. AP-95-91N-9546) -r (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO MERRITT & 1160 r � l PARDINI'S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE Mom PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CENTER oop (1) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE DRIFTWOOD D� Ay5R5 PLAYERS TO LEASE SPACE AT THE OLD PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING Council President Pro-tem Fahey pulled Item C because Council had been advised of three separate corrections requested to the minutes of July 25, 1995. Councilmember Kasper indicated a desire to review the other corrections prior to voting for approval. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM 3ER MYERS TO FErz DEFER THE APPROVAL OF THE JULY 25, 1995 MINUTES UNTIL NEXT MEETING. pPRbyl Q y MOTION CARRIED. The item deferred is as follows: M5 g, f65 (C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 25, 1995 Councilmember Myers pulled Item B because of a mistake on page 5 of the minutes under Roger Hertrich's comments. "Sight specific" should be "site specific". COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO-TEM o� g FAHEY, TO APPROVE ITEM B AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED. The item approved is as A� follows: rg 9 itt (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 18, 1995 3. AUDIENCE Ray Olson, 22808 - 106th Place West, Edmonds, was present to speak to Item 5 on the agenda. He agreed to be heard when that item appeared. Estelle Radu, 8629 - 238th Street S.W., Edmonds, requested information and discussion regarding some of FFit her concerns with regard to transportation issues: speed limits, trucks, air and noise pollution. She indicated there is a large health impact, asked if the speed limit could be reduced to 25 m.p.h., whether 139 anything could be done, or whether the Council was already considering these issues. Mayor Hall suggested this matter could be put on the agenda for the Public Safety Committee. 4. COMMENDATION FOR BRAVERY boa Police Chief Tom Miller invited the Nelson, Wallace and Goodwin families to the podium. Chief Miller �n �, explained that 12 year old Leslie Wallace, 10 year old Natalie Wallace, and their cousin, 10 year old Katie 'BJEAY Nelson, were responsible for assisting a younger Kelsey Goodwin escape during an attack in Yost Park a year ago. They recognized a serious problem, took responsible aciton, and were also instrumental in providing important information which proved invaluable in the investigation and arrest of the attacker. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 2 Mayor Hall then read and presented Commendations of Bravery dated August 1, 1995, to the three young ladies for their courageous actions. Chief Miller interjected that because of the "three strikes, you're out law" the attacker in this case will be going to prison for life. 5. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE 0DI^°gyD5 PROPOSED REZONE APPLICATION BY THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR p SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 22901 106TH AVENUE WEST FROM "RS-8" TO PUBLIC USE - "P" (File No. R-95-83) '2601RP�uJvd 11 � Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson introduced the subject and produced an overhead vicinity map for Council referral. This matter is a rezone of the subject property from RS-8 (single family) to Public Use designation. Conditional uses of the RS-8 zone include schools, with this one being 13.5 acres developed with an existing elementary school. The Public Use designation also contains elementary schools as a permitted use. The Planning Board has reviewed the matter, held public hearings and adopted a recommendation to approve the request. Mr. Mar called Council attention to the Planning Board Recommendation, Planning Board Minutes of 7/ 12/95 and Planning Staff Report attached to the Agenda Memo in Council's packets. Under the RS-8 the School District exists as any property owner. He described the benefits and limitations of this type of zoning. Mr. Wilson further indicated there were presently two requests for this property: the rezone proposal and a request to the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Tonight is the land use designation. Ultimately, Council will see a site specific appeal regarding remodel proposals at the school, the details of which cannot be considered by Council at this time. Mr. Wilson went on to explain that this request does not change any uses. It simply changes the land use designation so the school property under Public Use designation will be consistent with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Kasper commented that this is the second case Council has considered since the Comprehensive Plan went through. His question deals with process. He then questioned what was happening with contract rezones. Mr. Wilson explained that contract rezones still exist under the code, but that is a separate and distinct part of the code; the applicant has the choice of whether or not to initiate that process. Mr. Kasper confirmed they had forfeited that process. A contract rezone is a method whether they can choose to provide some additional stipulations or contractual arrangements with the City to limit or expand certain uses within that category. It has only been used a couple of times in the city and has not been used in the last several years. Councilmember Kasper then questioned the conditional use permits. Mr. Wilson responded that the conditional use permit is a function of the underlying zoning designation. In the RS-8 designation, a school is permitted as a conditional use. Primarily, all of the public facilities, whether City owned or School District owned properties, are typically classified in the zoning as Public Use facilities. He cited examples of properties designated as Public Use properties. Councilmember Kasper then asked about the public review process and whether there would be public hearings. Mr. Wilson advised that there is public review under the ADB process. Councilmember Kasper noted that Council gets information from pictures and presentations and advice that the people had a certain opinion, but not through any direct public input. Mr. Wilson reminded Councilmember Kasper that this is a change in land use designation. The requirements of the Growth Management Act are being met to some degree because it does require consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation. In the Comprehensive Plan designation of Public and a current zoning residential, there is inconsistency. The proposed rezone request brings that land use designation and zoning designation into consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Kasper said there is a major transition going on with a number of parties confused. He asked what the education process would be. CITY COUNCIL. APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 3 Councilmember Nordquist called a point of order stating that he believed these questions should be asked after the hearing. Councilmember Kasper indicated his concern was regarding process. Mr. Wilson responded that the proposal of the School District to make changes is a separate process and must be kept separate from this process. This issue is not related to the current buildings on the property and not related to any proposals by the School District to remodel the facility, but simply related to a land use designation of a change in the zoning classification from Single Family to Public Use in a manner consistent with the newly -adopted Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Kasper indicated some of his questions arose because of notification questions, etc. City Attorney Phil Olbrechts advised that on the issue of contract rezones, under the Edmonds Code, the applicant is the one who must request one. It does not have to be that way. A lot of cities do it with the Council deciding it doesn't want a rezone of a particular property because the change would be too drastic. However, if the City is willing to agree to mitigation terms, then a contract rezone could be accomplished. From a land use attorney perspective, it is a nightmare because the contract stays for 100 years while zoning changes 6 or 7 times. It is generally not favored, however, under the new Regulatory Reform Act, the State legislation specifically authorizes contract rezones. It is a valid issue which the City may want to consider in the future. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Brett Carlstad, Edmonds School District Planning Property Manager, 20420 - 68th Avenue West, Lynnwood, indicated that Trevor Hart, Project Manager, was also present. He highlighted for Council the District's history with this property and stated that the District has no intention of surplusing the property or changing uses on this site. The School District approached the City about the rezone because it has a pending project on appeal from the ADB. That action is project specific and requires either a rezone or conditional use permit. Mr. Carlstad further explained that it made sense to get a rezone because of the. history and vision for the property. Ray Olson, 22808 - 106th Place West, Edmonds, questioned how the ADB could approve the plan when the zoning is not clear. He said what generated the School Board requirement to do this rezoning was the safety requirements of the children and the school bus system not being adequate to provide that safety, as well as the traffic confusion that happened at the school site itself. It looks to him that the School's management and Council is faced with the problem of providing better moral guidance or security to these students so there wouldn't be so many parents taking their kids to school themselves but would use the school bus system. The other item the School Board didn't really address was the possibility of putting a policeman on the site in the morning and afternoon. The additional cost could be part of what the school is going to expend anyway for all of the improvements. He likened it to what is provided for the traffic for the ferry. Mayor Hall commented this may be a good project for volunteers. Jeff Wilson responded that part of the discussions Staff had with the applicant early were exactly as the speaker had indicated and dealt with the timing issue. The applicant had the choice and could have pursued a conditional use permit as part of the land use permitting process in conjunction with the ADB review. However, in this instance, given that the City's newly adopted Comprehensive Plan identified the property as public use and the requirements in the Growth Management Act that the zoning and the land use be consistent, it didn't seem appropriate to pursue a course of action that would require a conditional use permit under single family zoning, but it would be consistent with the GMA to rezone the property from RS-8 to Public Use so that the two are consistent with each other. The ADB review of the proposal was basically contingent upon whatever the decision was. If the underlying zoning classification is not changed, the applicant would have to pursue and receive a conditional use permit if, in fact, their remodeling proposals met that threshold. If CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 4 the rezone proposal was approved by the Council, then the ADB's decision would stand on its merits based upon that newly identified zoning classification. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Wilson then added a couple of points of clarification. One of the questions raised was whether the school district property was under City ownership. The property is owned by the School District under City jurisdiction because it is located within city boundaries. The request here is not specifically related to a site design related issue which is proceeding on its own separate course through the ADB and will also be before the Council on a pending appeal. Mr. Olbrechts advised there is an Appearance of Fairness issue involved in discussing the site specific aspects of this proposal. Council cannot judge the project and give its opinions on whether it likes or dislikes the parking, sidewalks, etc. Those will be discussed on the ADB appeal. Councilmember Myers questioned the part Open Space and part RS-8 zoning of the Edmonds-Woodway High School. The Open Space designation was a result of the School District acquiring the property from the Department of Natural Resources where it placed stipulations on not allowing any structures to occur on the western portion of the property. Mr. Myers related his belief that the School District did not purchase the property, but leased it as long as a school was operated there. If there is no school, it goes back to the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Wilson reiterated that the Open Space is to preserve that western portion of the property which, through arrangements with the Department of Natural Resources, could not have structures on it. Responding to questions of Councilmember Earling, Mr. Wilson indicated the Public Use designation basically provides for protection of that property to remain in some sort of public use facility, and it could not be surplused by the School District and allowed to be developed as an additional residential neighborhood without going through a reverse process. In this instance the two steps would be: a) amend the Comprehensive Plan which can only be done once a year, and b) concurrent or subsequent rezone of the property to be consistent with that land use designation. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED. 6. DISCUSSION ON STORM WATER RATE STUDY J!7°Rm WArgk Public Works Superintendent Noel Miller reported on what steps have been taken by the city to improve "'r stormwater quality and protect streams and creeks. He stated that while a system is in place, there is not 5T'cD equipment or manpower to inspect and maintain the total stormwater system for the city. Under the stormwater ordinance recently passed, the State of Washington mandated through this program that maintenance occur for both private and public systems. The effect of this is that the City needs to intensify its maintenance program and also develop a program to monitor the private detention systems for the private development that has occurred since the 1980s. Mr. Miller utilized the overhead projector to show "Additional Stormwater Maintenance Costs" as provided to Council in the packets. They are looking at hiring another lead person who would look after total maintenance systems and keep track of large systems. They are also looking to hire additional maintenance workers and part time help in the summer. The biggest expenditure would be buying a new vactor unit. That purchase is in the budget for this year, however a request was made to bring this back before Council before anything was actually purchased. The bottom line is an annual cost increase of $250,000, and a total equipment cost of $280,000. Mr. Miller then described the proposed "Stormwater Maintenance Organization Chart", also contained in Council packets. Public Works is looking at a need of three additional people plus summer help. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 5 Mr. Miller then discussed other cities' stormwater rates calculated into their utility rates. The consultant report of R. W. Beck included some information regarding drainage maintenance costs and capital costs. They did the calculations based on equivalent service units: Mr. Miller indicated he is looking at $1.00+ per household per month to pay for these costs. These costs could be separated out from the City's billing right now under the Storm Drainage Utility Ordinance passed in about 1988. Mr. Miller asked Jim Walker to give Council a status on the capital costs, what has been done since the R. W. Beck report, give a feel on how much money is being spent, and whether there is a need to spend any more than presently in our budget. City Engineer Jim Walker stated the City is expending about $300-400,000 a year on storm drainage projects. They are projecting spending in that range on an average for stormwater capital improvements. Mr. Miller stressed that the need was for money for maintenance and not for capital'costs. Other issues discussed before are some equity issues with the existing utility rates. His concern is for commercial customers. They have been trying to go with a single meter, with a lot of water being used for irrigation. The sewer rate right now is based on water usage. Concerns have been expressed to Staff from developers and property owners that this really is inequitable since the water being used for irrigation doesn't go down the sewer, but they are being charged for it. If that requirement is dropped and the City goes with a flat sewer rate and go with a separate irrigation meter, under that scheme the City would be losing revenue into the combined fund. That could be allocated and reviewed under a rate study. Staff would like to contact utility rate consultants to develop a scope of work and budget as far as proceeding with coming up with a recommended utility rate schedule. Councilmember Nordquist noted nothing was budgeted, and asked Mr. Miller what money had been set aside to establish this media. Mr. Miller said there were no monies established in the budget right now. If something was desired this year, the money could be taken from the ending cash balance. An elaborate study is not envisioned. Mr. Miller recommended an amount not to exceed $10,000 for a rate consultant. Administrative Services Director Art Housler said the $10,000 request seemed reasonable. He additionally noted a full-blown study would run about $25,000. Councilmember Nordquist asked for clarification of the fund from which the monies would be taken. Mr. Miller indicated the ending cash balance of the 411 Fund. There has been quite a bit of groundwork done on this already. Staff can go ahead and make a recommendation if Council felt comfortable, but with trying to have the City look out for the ratepayers, some independent consultant should be involved. Councilmember Kasper wanted to clear the air on what is being done. He asked Mr. Miller if he was starting to talk about a stormwater utility where there is a utility tax separated from the utility bill entirely. Mr. Kasper said the City policy at this point was not to do that. He asked if this were a step toward that. Mr. Miller responded that it could be, or it could be that you just add more cost onto the existing sewer charge. Mr. Kasper stated that the second option was already allowed -- Staff could come back and bring in stormwater utility charges and increase the sewer surcharge. He asked why Staff was looking at another type of tax. Mr. Housler responded that in 1988 the City passed an ordinance setting up three distinct, separate accounting entities -- water, sewer and stormwater. This process begins to establish those different accounts, different funds, and different entities. Along with that they need to be self-sustaining. Sewer rates may be reduced because now it covers drainage, and increase or put on a stormwater drainage rate. Councilmember Kasper thinks then the City would lose flexibility which is part of the reason it was opposed in the first place. He reported that there had been talk about increasing the sewer rate and, if necessary, increase the storm utility. Keep it concentrated so flexibility was maintained. He thinks what is being done is permanently dedicating money so it was spent regardless of whether it was necessary on CRY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 6 projects. He thinks that is why the control held right now is liked. We account for it, but nobody has it until it comes to the budget process. He sees more and more projects wanting more and more money all over the state. He asked for clarification on why something new was desired. Mr. Housler responded that City Code Combined Utility Chapter 7.60 states, as revised March 31, 1990, that "[T]he Council declares its intent to establish rates for combined water and sewer utility and stormwater management utility in order to better account for the cost of the respective components of the combined utility, the Administrative Services Director is directed to maintain said separate fiords in accounting structures as they deem necessary to discreetly account for the costs, expenses and revenues of each component utility". Mr. Kasper disagreed with that description of Council intent. Mr. Housler stated that if Council wishes to change that, it must change the City Code. If not, Staff will proceed with Council's wishes. Mr. Housler emphasized that it was stated very clearly what he was to do. Mr. Kasper confirmed there was no street utility in the code. Councilmember Kasper opined that if Council made the statement it didn't want to form a utility for stormwater, that it wanted to account for it, set it up as another budget item like streets and sewer. Sewer and streets both have revenues, and Councilmember Kasper feels this could have revenue if desired. He said Council does not want to start adding just to build a pot of money for stormwater; it is wanted on a maintenance basis. Councilmember Earling and Mayor Hall discussed what Council action had been. Mr. Housler suggested the matter be turned over to the City Attorney for review and instructions. He also indicated that under Chapter 7.50 Paul Mar is supposed to set up a stormwater management, and he is ex-officio official of the utilities. Mr. Housler reiterated that this is what he understood was the intent of Council. He again suggested that if this is incorrect, a legal opinion should be obtained, or Council should change the ordinance and provide him with better direction. Councilmember Kasper asked to see all the minutes of those meetings to go through and see just what the intent was. He suggested looking at the intent and not just the wording. Mayor Hall proposed that he ask the Council Resource Person to obtain those from 1988 and 1990. Council President Pro -tern Fahey said that, while she can appreciate the intent from 1988, she thinks there are several new people on the Council that may view it differently. It sounded to her like the proposal tonight was simply to get information so that an informed decision could be made, and that it will determine appropriate rates for the stormwater process. How it is ultimately taxed and in what categories it will be taxed is a separate issue that could be addressed later. She thinks now what Council is trying to determine is what the necessary costs and how they could be prorated to the taxpayer if that is necessary. Going back to the capital projects recommended in 1991 and the fact that at this point there are only four completed and two more on the horizon, Council President Pro-tem Fahey asked if there was a time line on this and whether the 10 year response was realistic in terms of paying for them in the present manner. Mr. Miller indicated it was not and suggested Mr. Walker could address that further. Ms. Fahey asked if the time line is not realistic if there was a driving force behind it, whether there were mandates to be considered, or whether these were just recommendations the consultants thought would be appropriate for the City to consider. Mr. Walker indicated these are a list of items combined from the earlier study along with the study that those consultants did; it is a prioritized list. He explained the priority system and the intended time frames for the different priorities. Mr. Walker does not see any real risk in following through with a roughly 10-year program. In three to four years the first ten on the group should be done or have some sort of reason for deferral. Council President Pro -tern Fahey's other question concerned assessments done by other municipalities and the fact that the Olympic View Water District is already assessing for stormwater. She asked if their stormwater was being channeled to Edmonds. Mr. Miller confirmed it was. When asked if there had been anything built into the cost that Edmonds is charging Olympic for that, taking into consideration the fact they are charging their citizens for that service, Mr. Miller responded the City only receives what it gets from Snohomish County as far as joint participation but nothing else. The problem is compounding right CITY COUNCIL APPROVED NUNUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 7 now because we don't get that charge once the people come into the city, so the amount of money on a per capita basis is going down every time there is another Esperance annexation done. Councilmember Myers questioned the organizational chart and questioned who was doing the crew scheduling now. Mr. Miller answered that it was a combination of the existing lead worker and the supervisor. With the expanded program, one of the duties that Staff recommends for lead workers is that they will need to do research, and customer relations work with private owners who have detention tanks to get those tanks on a regular maintenance schedule. The position duties are similar to the City's water quality program for drinking water where people have backflow preventers. It is the responsibility of the private property owner to maintain those preventers, and there has to be some follow-up and checking with the person in the Water/Sewer Department to work with them to get those things tested. Councilmember Myers suggested Council might want to ease into this program and not add all the people all at once. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT DISCUSSIONS BE INITIATED WITH THE UTILITY RATE CONSULTANTS TO ESTABLISH A RECOMMENDED SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET FOR A RATE STUDY TO BE PERFORMED IN EARLY 1996 AND THAT A SUM NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 IS AUTHORIZED TO FUND THIS PROJECT TO COME FROM THE ENDING CASH BALANCE OF THE 411 FUND. MOTION CARRIED. 7. REVIEW OF INITIATIVE 164 AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT AY Current Planning Supervisor Rob Chave introduced the discussion of Initiative 164 and the Regulatory fioioo M Reform Act. The intent of the presentation is to try to bring Council up-to-date on the actions that have RRr7 been initiated, and highlight a couple of areas on which it is believed the Planning Board and Staff would like direction before proceeding too far. All want to get started on this State mandate on the right track. He noted that Planning Board members were in attendance. Mr. Chave further commented that while I-164 has received most of the attention, the Regulatory Reform Act may in the long run have more impact. He then turned the discussion over to City Attorney Olbrechts. Mr. Olbrechts advised these two issues will have major impacts on the way the City of Edmonds does planning. With regard to I-164, we are in good shape. Even if it had been effective on July 23, we had the mechanism in place that would have protected the City. Initiative 164 has three areas of concern: (1) takings - where property owners must be paid for the taking of their property as defined by 164; 2) must put together economic impact assessments, and 3) study costs which cannot be passed along to the project applicants. One of the issues is who, if 164 does pass, should pay for those studies -- all developers through higher permit fees; taxpayers; or do we drop the study requirement altogether. 1-164 does not alter constitutional takings law. That still exists. What it does is expand the types of takings available to property owners. One of the first exceptions to this taking clause is that if the regulation prevents a public nuisance it is not considered a taking. A lot of attorneys are hoping at the very least that it will protect basic building codes. The second requirement for takings is that the regulation in. question is whether the taking or the enforcement of a land use action has to be for public benefit. Supposedly the government is imposing this regulation for the benefit of other people and not the property owner. The third trigger for takings, and the one fairly important from his firm's analysis, is that it has to result in reduction of the fair market value of the property. There is no taking if the property regulations do not reduce the property value. This comes from constitutional takings law to a certain extent because under the U. S. and State Constitutions, property owners are entitled to just compensation if their property is taken without due process. When just compensation is measured, it is measured by a reduction in fair market value. A commercial property is worth more than a residential property, and that is factored in. If CITY COUNCU. APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1,1995 PAGE 8 you enforce that commercial regulation on the property, you are not going to decrease the property value. That is an analysis that has received a fair amount of acceptance amongst people trying to interpret 1- 164. Mr. Olbrechts advised that I-164 is a very vague piece of legislation with no two attorneys agreeing on its meaning. 'This makes responding difficult. The interpretation is also contingent upon which group is doing the interpreting. Under his firm's fair market analysis where existing property regulations are protected, what they are saying is that one of the worst things you can do is start repealing property regulations when you don't know if you have to. If a repealed action is deemed to be protected by I-164, you cannot re-enact the regulation because a newly enacted regulation is subject to 164. Secondly, I-164 required an economic impact assessment for each new property regulation. Mr. Olbrechts feels it very important to be conservative in the response and only do what is absolutely necessary. Under that approach, it would be nice to have some sort of safety valve which is what is being considered by the Planning Board right now. The safety valve he put together is an administrative review process before the Hearing Examiner. If someone believes they are entitled to compensation under 164, they have to go to the Hearing Examiner and ask for compensation. If the Hearing Examiner determines that compensation is required under 164, the Hearing Examiner has the authority to waive that property regulation and impose substitute conditions that still, as much as possible, effectuate the purpose of the property regulation. Under the Washington State Exhaustion of Remedies Doctrine, you are not allowed to go to court and sue on a 164 taking unless you go to the Hearing Examiner first. You can also throw in a clause that provides that if the Planning Director, the City Attorney, or the applicant would like the Council to consider paying instead of waiving the property regulations, there is that option. Council, on its own option, can bring it up for consideration. The City has ultimate control in the circumstances. It is a little costly, but given the other options, it is the most practical and only way to go right now. While the escape clause is acting as a temporary safety valve, it is important to identify high risk property regulations so that once a determinative decision has come out that environmental protection legislation in general is subject to 164, we can quickly adapt to that decision and put in new measures. Based on some of the previous analysis, a hierarchy has been established by Mr. Olbrechts. The highest risk category would be wetlands, buffers and wildlife habitat protection measures. What will be difficult for cities is that these regulations are required by the Growth Management Act. If you don't adequately protect the wetlands, someone can then take the City to the Growth Management Hearings Board and with the Regulatory Reform Act, the Hearings Board has the ability to invalidate a city's comprehensive plan until it is amended to meet their standards. That means the development of moratoriums. Mr. Olbrechts does not believe the risk to be that bad because if someone does petition some regulations before the Board, the City can quickly adopt stronger language, and we are safe there. The next category of risk are architectural design standards. Mr. Olbrechts thinks that falls under the public benefit analysis. He believes the design of a new building would be more of a benefit to the community than to a property. The next category would be zoning code requirements which to a large degree are protected by public nuisance. The most high risk under the zoning code requirements would be setbacks and height limitations. Current public nuisance regulation doesn't protect height limits. The blockage of views and blockage of light are not considered a public nuisance. Mr. Olbrechts recognized the importance of view preservation in Edmonds and expressed his hope that people realize that could be effected by 164. Finally at the bottom of the list are the building codes. What needs to be decided is how far down the hierarchy Council wishes to go in terms of preparing a response. Mr. Olbrechts' recommendation is that first response deal with the critical areas under growth management. It seems that is what the writers of 164 really had in mind. He recommended that the Council recommend to the Planning Board that it at least consider making some modifications to those and CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 9 have them sit there just in case they are needed. One of the reasons for this presentation is to get a general feel from the Council as to what it wants the Planning Board to do. Councilmember Earling said sequentially he understood Mr. Olbrechts' recommendation to be that if 1- 164 became law through the vote in November, we would have at that time serious recommendations come forth from the Planning Board that Council would use if needed. Mr. Olbrechts confirmed that if it becomes law we probably still won't know if all wetlands regulations are to be subject to 164, but he thinks that is the highest risk category, and there is a really good chance that it will be effected. There should be an alternate set of regulations for this category that doesn't constitute takings that can be adopted if they have to. Mr. Chave advised there are a number of actions that can be taken. We can do a full scale analysis of all the City's regulations, coming up with a fallback for everything. However, it is believed the more prudent thing would be to take a more conservative approach and try to address the most at risk regulations and have the Planning Board spend time on those. If 164 does become law in December, it may take some time before it is known if some of the less risky regulations are going to need adjustment. It is suggested the focus be on the highest risk ones and have something that can be put in place to address those situations if 164 becomes law. It is a balancing act, and they would like to know what Council's comfort level is. Councilmember Earling indicated that in a general response, conservative is better. Because the height and sight issue is such an important issue, he hopes that they will get examined so there will be some position Council can take out to the public who expects some response in this situation. Mr. Chave indicated that as a companion to that, it can be tried to at least identify some of the impacts and come up with some specifics on the highest risk category, but at least in a cursory manner outline some of the problems and concerns about the other classifications. Councilmember Fahey expressed concern about the nebulous area that is not articulated in the bill. When they delineate or specifically mention wetlands and wildlife habitat as things that they are aiming at and they then leave it open to public benefit designations, it seems there is going to be a window of opportunity from December if this passed until it could again be addressed by the legislature. For a city like Edmonds some of the things being discussed could be brought to the fore, and we would have to act on them in some way that could have major ramifications. It would not take more than one or two people coming in and asserting their right to build a taller building or to put a different type of use in a zoned area that would call the City into either having to give them some kind of remuneration or make the decision to go through a court case. She asked what we are really facing in terms of the time line on any ordinance challenge. Mr. Olbrechts indicated the time line was three months after they had been denied the right to build or denied the right of compensation which under our escape clause Hearing Examiner process would not happen until the final decision of the Hearing Examiner. Council President Pro-tem Fahey thinks Councilmember Earling's questions were well made and reiterated one of Edmonds' big issues is the height issue. Her concern is that if one person were to get an increase in property values or the City had to pay if it disallowed the project, what happens to all the other property values that are stacked up against that where people are going to wind up losing their views and whether they have any recourse. Mr. Olbrechts' firm believes that to be a very likely interpretation. Since I-164 isn't really written that way, it probably was not the intent of the authors, and he can't see why it would be interpreted by the courts that way. It would put the City in the position where there is nothing it could do. Councilmember Kasper asked for comment on height limits and where elimination of bulk comes in. There was discussion of the definition of the term "bulk". Mr. Olbrechts said that sounds like a design standard. He also stated that setbacks would be a low priority; bulk would be aesthetic and a high risk. Councilmember Kasper expressed concern that these types of issues were occurring in developments with CITY COUNCIL, APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1. 1995 PAGE 10 condominiums upstairs and businesses downstairs. Mr. Olbrechts suggested looking at that at the Planning Board stage. Mr. Olbrechts advised that the next area which is not protected by the Hearing Examiner process and is something that needs to be in place if 164 goes into effect (or shortly thereafter) is the 164 requirement that we can't charge property owners for any studies, maps, plans or reports used in decisions considered restricting the use of private property for public use. The term "restrict property for public use" is very ambiguous. A limited definition would be public road dedications on a subdivision. That hardly seems to be what the intent is here. That may mean that we can't charge people for plat maps for subdivisions which could be a very expensive proposition for the City. Mr. Olbrechts advised that the property regulation being targeted is the wetlands. Critical areas studies seem to be the highest risk. The hierarchy here is: 1) environmentally sensitive issues, 2) the subdivision, site plan maps and plats, especially those involving dedications for public roads and trails, and 3) building permit specifications which may not be chargeable. Literally, the way 164 is worded, that would be true. He thinks most likely what will happen is talk about the highest risk categories such as the various maps and studies. He asked if an across-the-board permit cost increase should be considered. Should we just not require the studies? The Planning Board should definitely look at how those costs can be spread out and what kinds of substitutes there are. Mr. Olbrechts suggested the most reasonable way to handle this is to not have professionals, but Staff make that determination. With regard to the economic impact assessment, like the environmental impact statement, you must determine the fiscal impact of the enforcement or adoption of property regulations and then you have to examine alternatives to see if there is another way to be done that costs less money. This may be something for which you can require the applicant to pay. Again, Staff could do a rough estimate of how much it will cost and do a very basic analysis of the alternatives. The hierarchy on that is adoption of new property regulations that doesn't abate nuisance which include almost all new property regulations. This would require an economic impact assessment, the charge for which, could not be passed along to the applicant. If there are property regulations wished to be adopted, do so before the 1-164 goes into effect so you can avoid its requirements. The second area would be enforcement of discretionary land use requirements such as conditional use permits, site reviews and subdivision. At the bottom of the scale would be the non - discretionary land use requirements such as building codes. Out of fiscal necessity, it was suggested this area not be considered. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO OPEN THE MEETING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. Melody Tereski of the Planning Board asked Council how it wished the Planning Board to respond in the next six months in getting this accomplished. They have seen a proposed ordinance which was sent back for a rewrite. The Board wanted to know whether it could consult directly with the attorney. They have questions about a sunset clause if the initiative does go through. She requested direction as far as communication, whether it is desired they work as an ad hoc committee with an attorney present, etc. Ms. Tereski also asked if Mr. Olbrechts had a summary he could provide to them. Mr. Ohlbrechts stated he will provide one. Mayor Hall suggested the Planning Board get all information it can and that the next step might be another combined meeting with Mr. Olbrechts. Ms. Tereski reiterated the need for some more specific information, in writing, because a lot of small points had been raised of which the Planning Board is unfamiliar. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 11 Councilmember Earling suggested the Planning Board attend a workshop with the attorney so the questions raised by Ms. Tereski could be answered. It would take less time and expense. Mr. Ohlbrechts continued and stated the next area of discussion is the Regulatory Reform Act which contains things that must absolutely be done and will have a big impact on Edmonds. In general terms, it requires you to put together a process for an entire project that only has one open record public hearing and one closed record appeal. The Edmonds Zoning Code has layers of appeals and de novo hearings. All of that will have to be taken out and streamlined. That probably will take more work than 1-164. Mr. Olbrechts handed out and showed visually a flow chart of the processes envisioned by regulatory reform. Councilmember Kasper asked about remands and was advised there were none as now experienced. There would be no additional testimony that could be considered in terms of a hearing, but can be done on the record. Mr. 01brechts then discussed in some detail the mandatory requirements and time frames of Regulatory Reform as shown on the handout. He indicated it really does not make sense to have all the separate permit processes and asked for Council's feelings. Responding to questions, Mr. Chave stated under the Regulatory Reform Act you need to have a consolidated process where all of the discretionary approvals have a single hearing, with a single decision and a single appeal. That is one of the most significant impacts on Edmonds. Mayor Hall pointed out the time allocated for discussion on this matter had expired. COUNCILMEM 3ER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESENT PRO-TEM FAHEY, TO EXTEND THE DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper noted that it is common for big operations to come in and do all the permitting at once. If they can't operate in a certain small time span, they don't buy the land. Councilmember Kasper thinks there is a need for a dual approach. Mr. Chave says the City can always repeal the individual processes. What the City has to do is come up with a consolidated process. What can be decided later is whether we want to retain the individual processes. Mr. Kasper commented that all the expenditure would be paid out before the applicant would know where they were going. He sees that as a problem. Councilmember Earling thinks it might help if at some point some examples could be cited how using individual processes can be a benefit or detriment. He commented that he likes the time lines of the regulatory reform. He commented on times when a very good project was delayed endlessly. This seems to give potential relief along those lines. For a quality project that is stopped by an individual because they have some bad feeling about that particular project, he sees some advantage to this. Council President Pro -tern Fahey requested and received clarification of the public hearing process. Mr. Olbrechts advised that the closed record hearing referred to is for an appeal. You can consolidate the hearings but it necessitates that the process be changed and a decision be made as to who will hold the hearing. Ms. Fahey confirmed the fact that Council would be reviewing all information that had been formally presented at the original public hearing; it simply precludes de novo where additional new information can be presented. She sees it as eliminating one step. Mr. Chave advised that an appeal hearing is now attached to a project instead of a permit. Councilmember Kasper stated it looked like a summary decision. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1,1995 PAGE 12 Mr. Olbrechts then discussed the second major focus -- consolidation of environmental review. If you have done an adquate environmental analysis under a critical areas study, you don't have to do it again under SEPA. The Department of Ecology is to come out with some regulations that define this. How this would apply in the ultimate sense is that you would prepare an environmental impact statement for some area plan that covers several hundred acres. Then all the development that occurs within that area no longer needs any environmental review, no more DNSs, no more DISs for subdivisions or anything else as it was done the first time under the Environmental Impact Statement when planning general land uses. That will take a lot of red tape out of the regulatory process. Mr. Olbrechts indicated that recommended order of response here is the DNS appeal first as that was due July 23. Second is to get the permitting process together to comply with this. The third is to consolidate environmental review with prorated expense. Mr. Chave said Council would probably want another work session where it could focus in on the few things that are felt necessary in terms of direction for the Planning Board. Mayor Hall thought that would be imperative as two Council members were absent tonight. Mr. Chave suggested trying to get that discussion on the August work meeting. He thinks there can be enough material gathered to discuss the subject further. Mr. Chave indicated they would also like to have the Planning Board members present at a joint meeting at Council's discretion. Council President Pro-tem Fahey set the matter for 45 minutes at the August 22 work meeting. Council President Pro-tem Fahey interjected that she learned at the Association of Washington Cities workshop related to ADB decision that there was a recent (within the last one to two years) decision that cast new light on some of the things that can be done in that arena and was based on a case in Issaquah specifically dealing with language that is ambiguous. Somehow a review of the language and policies of decisions of the ADB need to be tied in because unless those kinds of problems are cleaned up, we will be generating additional areas of discussion related to the hearing. Mr. Chave said that was part of the risky decisions discussed by Mr. Olbrechts. Mr. Olbrechts said that when that case came down there were some substantial changes made to the code here. That is where the idea of photographs as examples came from. Mr. Chave feels that is right on point because that is one of the purposes of the design plan that is hoped to be completed before the end of the year. That would provide the guidance and necessary specificities that are needed in the design regulations. 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A MEMORANDUM OF of ft UNDERSTANDING WITH OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT y AVER Community Services Director Paul Mar reported that at the June 7 meeting requested by Olympic Yew Water District, it was agreed that it would be in the best mutual interest to have an interloca.l agreement that spelled out all the specific issues and methods and timetables for resolution of near term and long term technical issues. An important aspect of this agreement would be the "takeover" of the District by the City. This agreement is the first step toward that end. A further interlocal agreement will be coming forth in approximately October. By state statute, the City is allowed to take over the District when more than 60% of the District's assessed value lies within the city limits. Councilmember Kasper expressed his hope that the City is not getting into a position like the Fire District annexation where the percentage has to be over 5% or money goes right out to the district. Mr. Mar responded that all parties are trying to approach this in a cooperative manner. Fire Chief Mike Springer indicated this is all inclusive of the entire water district while in the fire district there were still outlying CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 13 areas that were beyond the Esperance area. Councilmember Kasper indicated there was no obligation left to the buy out. He then raised the issue of Woodway. Mr. Mar indicated he had no answer but would investigate, He stressed the need to have a memorandum of understanding to get discussions going. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED. 9. UPDATE ON EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS 001. C160, OR will Community on August 7. Director Paul Mar has been informed that there is a possibility this sale/purchase COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AS GIVEN. MOTION CARRIED. 10A. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 822 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 820 REGARDING THE ANNEXATIONS OF GATE/EATON AND SNOLINE/FORSHEE Council was advised of a call received from the Snohomish County Auditor's Office regarding the Primary Ballot and the fact that Edmonds Resolution No. 820 called for an election for the Gate/Eaton and Snoline/Forshee Annexation areas but did not include ballot titles. The presented Resolution No. 822 remedies that oversight. ., 0-1 COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, 0 FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 822 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 820, SAID �& ft a 066 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION FOR THE GATE/EATON ANNEXATION AND * / Poo SNOLINE/FORSHEE ANNEXATION, IN ORDER TO ADD THE BALLOT TITLES FOR SAID 5,�ot► fo ELECTION. MOTION CARRIED. 10. MAYOR Rr Mayor Hall advised that Parks and Recreation Manager Arvilla Ohlde has announced there is a baby seal SEAL BERGtl on the beach at Anderson Marina. It must be left there for 72 hours to determine whether the mother will appear. D611gfer MaHall d letterhad b ,RE Mayor aalso announcea aeen received LSd Plia Stipulation and ved from eouratten encosng f0�,sK`1 Order of Dismissal of the Fire District No. 1 lawsuit. 11. COUNCIL Council President Pro-tem Fahey said she was very interested in the July 21 memo from City Attorney put".►c Scott Snyder regarding the procedures and rules regarding Public Service Announcements. She believes S6R+I�- Council should look at that memo and take action on it as she had not previously been aware of potential q,r EIS problems. It was noted the matter is scheduled on the August 15 agenda for a 10 minute discussion. Council President Pro-tem Fahey then brought attention to the fact that after last week's meeting there were some comments made by firemen that the Council was not addressing the needs of Fire Station No. 6. She 10A said they related to including size and need for creating a more extensive fire station. With the cap of $7 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MAIUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 14 million currently set, Council was working with the space needs at the campus location and did not look at the needs of Fire Station No. 6. She wants more information regarding the needs of Fire Station No. 6. Council President Pro-tem Fahey then raised the issue that she had heard a brief announcement that the R1�,,n Boundary Review Board did not approve the Perrinville annexation, most likely because of Lynnwood's ro ry1+� exception to the boundaries. She asked what the decision was and what the next step would be. Jeff Wilson indicated that the decision was part of the Executive Session to be held, but that 76th and Olympic View Drive would most likely be the boundary. She noted it is on the extended agenda for August 15 for Council to adopt a resolution for election date. Councilmember Myers received a letter from Student Representative Emily Shen indicating that she will wD 0-f be on vacation with her family until August 12. She expressed her apologies for her absence. P. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCE OF STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE EMMY SHEN UNTIL AFTER AUGUST 12, 1995. MOTION CARRIED. t vN15 Councilmember Kasper indicated he would be moving into the second position of the Community 5Eay1 0 Services Committee because of the short amount of time he has left in his term of office. 0,oM- Councilmember Kasper then raised the issue of the brick repair on the Library Building. He indicated it .5gity- , did not appear to be moving along. He questioned removal of the flowers. He believes that if this doesn't fio#t y get done a lot more bricks will be lost with every freeze. Paul Mar indicated he had a meeting this morning L160 and will have a report next week for work to be done this year. Councilmember Nordquist reminded Council that several weeks ago he had requested to have the City's DjSA00 disaster plan for the waterfront televised for public information. He said he knows there is a plan for the Pad - a�f City staff and within those buildings, but he had wondered how the people would be advised. He would wtom like it put on the agenda as it is very important to the waterfront. Regarding the Perrinville annexation, Councilmember Nordquist said he would have liked to have had that mentioned at the Council meeting last week. He was concerned about having to find out through the newspaper. Mayor Hall indicated that was also the way she was informed. Councilmember Earling remarked that he was very pleased with some of the filing activity that occurred during the last week. He also acknowledged that Councilmember Kasper was not seeking re-election. He suggested a reception occur to honor Mr. Kasper in the next couple of months. ,,rg 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A LEGAL MATTER r`�ioli The public being advised there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was recessed to a ten minute Executive Session on a legal matter at 9:45 p.m. to adjourn from there. Y R ZSANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE 15 AUGUST 1, 1995 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. (10 Min.) CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 18, 1995 (C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 25, 1995 (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM RICK LINDROS ($477.29), AND JENNIFER JACOBSEN (Amount Unknown) (E) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #952065 THRU #953935 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 24, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $288,027.35 (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE MICROFICHE PRINTER/READER MACHINE FOR THE WATER/SEWER SECTION FROM BELL & HOWELL ($2,757.69) (G) APPROVAL OF MISCELLANEOUS FINDINGS OF FACT FROM HEARING OF JULY 18, 1995, ON HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR A SHED TO BE LOCATED IN THE STREET SET BACK AT 22021 76TH AVE. WEST (ApplicantlAppellant: Mark Travers / File No. AP-95-91/V-9546) (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO MERRITT & PARDINI'S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CENTER (1) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS TO LEASE SPACE AT THE OLD PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person) 4. (10 Min.) COMMENDATION FOR BRAVERY 5. (20 Min.) HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED REZONE APPLICATION BY THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, LOCATED AT 22901 106TH AVENUE WEST, FROM "RS-8" TO PUBLIC USE - "P" (File No. R-95-83) 6. (30 Min.) DISCUSSION ON A STORM WATER RATE STUDY 7. (45 Min.) REVIEW OF INITIATIVE-164 AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 8. (10 Min.) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT 9. (5 Min.) UPDATE ON EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS -Continued- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 1, 1995 PAGE TWO 10. (5 Min.) MAYOR 11. (15 Min.) COUNCIL 12. (10 Min.) EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A LEGAL MATTER Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this Meeting appears the following Wednesdav evening at 7.00 D.M. on Channel 36, and the following Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.