Loading...
11/14/1995 City Council1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 Following an Executive Session which commenced at 6:30 p.m. on a legal and real estate matter, and pursuant to notice, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:08 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 Tom Petruzzi, Council President Barbara Fahey, Councilmember William J. Kasper, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember ABSENT Michael Hall, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Emily Shen, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Miller, Police Chief Michael Springer, Fire Chief Art Housler, Admin. Services Director Paul Mar, Community Services Director Jim Walker, City Engineer Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Noel Miller, Public Works Supervisor Chuck Day, Accounting Manager Arvilla Ohlde, Parks & Recreation Manager Rob Chave, Planning Manager Stephen Koho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager Greg Ramsland, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder Council President Petruzzi advised that Fire Chief Springer needed five minutes on a Fire Department emergency matter and requested it be designated Item 4A on the Agenda. Councilmember Fahey asked to have Item F of the Consent Agenda pulled and placed on the regular Agenda for 10 minutes as Item 4B. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER TO MOVE ITEM F TO THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR 10 MINUTES AS ITEM 4B. MOTION CARRIED. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page i COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY, TO APPROVE PASSAGE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6,1995 tm (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #3249S THRU #5086F FOR THE WEEK OF �RagNT 5 NOVEMBER 6, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $136,403.38 �fs (D) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR PURCHASE OF MONUMENTS FOR CE�" COMMUNAL BURIAL SITE AT EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY �Srf (E) APPROVAL OF PETTY CASH EXPENDITURES FOR MONTH OF OCTOBER 1995 offy (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL 1,4d SERVICES WITH JUDITH STOLOFF ASSOCIATES FOR HOUSING STUDY ($20,000) tbS aoy 3. ORDINANCE NO 3051 REFUNDING 1991 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS D Administrative Services Director Art Housler introduced the subject and advised that Investment i6 Banker Dick Ehlers, Vice President of Seattle Northwest Securities, will present the offer to purchase Jqq the bonds and explain the justification for the offer; Bob Yeasting, Yeasting & Associates, will provide G•0'5 his recommendation on whether to accept or reject the offer and explain the justification; and Bond VpD Council Lee Voorhees, Foster, Pepper & Shefelman, will provide the completed ordinance and address any legal questions Council may have. Mr. Housler also advised that refunding this issue will produce approximately $47,000 in savings over the remaining five year life of the issue. Mr. Ehlers reviewed the goals and results in refunding the 1991 General Obligation Bonds. They wanted to refund the 1991 bond issue to achieve reasonable debt service savings, maintain the A-1 rating from Moody's Investor Service, and provide relatively level savings over the remaining life of the bond issue. Moody's has confirmed the A-1 rating. The present value is $52,535, and that compares with the $47,000 discussed a couple of weeks ago. They were able to get more attractive interest rates than originally thought. Mr. Ehlers called attention to the formal written offer to purchase the bond. It sets forth the terms of the bond issue and everything needed to complete it. It is substantially the same form as what Council has seen on past purchase contracts with one exception. There is a new requirement from the Securities & Exchange Commission that says they have to provide for ongoing disclosure of the City's financial statement. By a date set in the bond ordinance, the City needs to submit its financial statements to a nationally recognized information repository. Then notice must be sent of any certain material events. Council President Petruzzi confirmed for the audience that in doing the refund, the maturity of the bonds will not be extended, that the savings are net of all expenses, and the City is not adding any additional debt to the City. Mr. Ehlers said the City is not funding additional projects, but the way the refunding process works, you are issuing $50,000 more bonds than you are paying off, basically to cover the costs and to cover a shortfall in invested earnings between now and March 1. That is netted into the total savings. Mr. Petruzzi indicated his desire to advise the public that the City is not adding any additional City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 2 debt for any other projects; this is strictly an item that is being accomplished because the City has recognized that there is a savings if it refunds these bonds now in a relatively good interest rate market. Councilmember Kasper asked if the City was reducing the principal or the pay-off period. Mr. Ehlers advised that it remains the same. When asked if it could be reduced, Mr. Ehlers advised that it could, but it would raise the payment each year and would not shorten the term by a whole year. Mr. Yeasting reported that yesterday's sale went very well. He recommends the City award the sale of the bonds in accordance with the offer. Mr. Voorhees provided a copy of the Bond Ordinance to Council. First Trust Washington has been selected as trustee. As previously noted by Council President Petruzzi, Mr. Voorhees confirmed this as strictly a refunding. There is no new money for capital or other appropriate City purposes. All of the proceeds of the bonds will be placed in trust with First Trust Washington at the time of closing which will be about December 5 and used to call and retire the remaining $1.4 million of the 1991 bonds in the year 2000. Since it is a limited tax GO bond, it has the standard pledge that the City "... will levy taxes annually and in an amount sufficient, together with other funds available, to pay to the debt service within constitutional and statutory limits without a vote". The bonds are designated as bank -qualified. Provision is made for refunding and defeasance if the City chooses to do that in the future. The refunding plan is set forth in § 16, the savings are considered in § 18, and § 19 deals with approval of the purchase contract Mr. Ehlers presented this evening. Mr. Voorhees personally reviewed the contract and advised it is in appropriate form for consideration and action. He stated Council will not be approving the purchase contract per se but will instead be passing the Ordinance which will in turn authorize the execution and delivery of the Purchase Contract, and carrying out all other necessary actions to get the trust established and the bonds delivered. The November 6 Preliminary Official Statement is deemed final in accordance with a SEC requirement. The City agrees to make financial statements available, to file them with the repositories seven months after the end of each fiscal year beginning in 1996, and that it also file information about its tax levy and collection and the amount of general obligation debt that it has outstanding. There are also some event reporting requirements in the event the City defaults on an obligation or any of 11 other such designated items that would have to be reported. That is not anticipated to happen. Mr. Voorhees recommended favorable action on the recommendation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, THAT COUNCIL PASS CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 3051, AND RECOMMEND THE MAYOR SIGN SAME. MOTION CARRIED. The title of the ordinance is as follows: An Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness, providing for the issuance of $1,450,000 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1995, of the City to provide part of the funds with which to pay the cost of refunding the City's outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1991, and paying the administrative costs of such refunding and the costs of issuance and sale of such bonds, fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds, establishing a bond redemption fund, providing for and authorizing the purchase of certain obligations out of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds herein authorized and for the use and application of the money derived from those investments; authorizing the execution of an agreement with First Trust Washington of Seattle, Washington, as refunding trustee; providing for the call, payment and redemption of the outstanding bonds to be refunded; and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the bonds to Seattle -Northwest Securities Corporation of Seattle, Washington. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 3 4. HEARING ON TWO APPEALS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EDMONDS FLORAL & ARTS FOUNDATION FOR Ft,vRIR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FLORAL & ARTS CENTER LOCATED AT 203 AND 2114TH Res AVENUE NORTH (Appellants: Marvin Smith and Edgar Hodgson; Applicant: Edmonds Floral �ER and Arts Foundation and Edgar Hodgson / File Nos. CU-95-137. AP-95-167, and AP-95-169) C� Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson reported there were two appeals on two separate issues regarding the Edmonds Floral & Arts Foundation application for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed floral arts building. The proposal is for the construction of a two-story, approximately 10,650 square foot building, with 24 required parking spaces. Of the required parking spaces, 14 were required to be on site and 10 to be provided by other means allowed for under the City's development codes. Because of the unusual situation, Mr. Wilson outlined the procedure to be utilized, including the fact that Staff will present one report applicable to both appeals. At the conclusion of the testimony, Council will be asked to make a decision regarding both of the separate appeal files. The first appeal (AP-95-167) was filed by Marvin Smith; the second appeal (AP-95-169) was filed by James Hanken on behalf of Edgar Hodgson and the Edmonds Floral & Arts Foundation. The basic issue raised in Mr. Smith's appeal is his request that Council overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner and deny the Conditional Use Permit on the grounds that the proposal would not comply with the City's minimum required parking standards for the type of proposed use to be conducted on the site. Mr. Smith feels that the City improperly classified the type of use or the purposes of the use when calculating the required parking. Mr. Wilson reported that when a proposed use does not specifically fall within the parking guidelines, Staff determines the types of use existing and decides upon the most comparable parking calculation. Mr. Smith believes the use more closely classifies as an auditorium as defined under the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code. Mr. Wilson said the Code does not stipulate the required parking for a floral and arts display type of facility. Staff looked at the existing ordinances to evaluate what might be most closely akin to the types of uses to occur on the property and use that as a basis for the standard. Mr. Wilson stated Exhibit 10 is an internal memorandum outlining his evaluation and calculation. The zoning definitions for determining the types of use are far different from what the Uniform Building or Uniform Fire Codes use for evaluating and determining type of use for a facility. The Building Code and Fire Code are public safety issues related to exiting a facility and the safety of the occupants within the building. It is not related to the types of traffic that would be generated for a facility. Staff feels it inappropriate to use the definitions as provided in the Uniform Building Code or Uniform Fire Code of an auditorium to define a facility. The appeal filed by Mr. Hanken on behalf of Mr. Hodgson and the Floral & Arts Foundation raises different issues. He is not appealing the decision of the Hearing Examiner to approve the permit. They are appealing the conditions that were imposed by the Hearing Examiner in the approval of the permit. His appeal is broken down into two issues: 1) He disagrees with the decision restricting the number of occupants in the building. The number as cited is 96 which is based on a formula derived from the number of required parking spaces of 24 multiplied by potentially 4 occupants per vehicle. Mr. Hanken is raising the question of whether that established process is an arbitrary standard. There is no foundation in existing City Code to establish that occupant load. 2) The appeal raises questions on the restrictions placed on the ancillary types of uses to occur within the building. The Hearing Examiner restricted the facility from renting out the facility in off times for weddings, receptions or parties. Mr. Hanken feels that is somewhat arbitrary in the application of the allowances within the BC Zone as an excessive restriction placed on the use. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 4 Staff concurs that the limitation of the building occupancy based on a formula that is derived from the required parking spaces is an arbitrary standard in that it does not have a foundation in any of the City's existing ordinances. The Building and Fire Codes set occupancy based on the exiting capacity of the facility, not on parking. The standard based on the number of parking spaces and theoretical occupants in those vehicles is not a standard which could be administered equally and would be difficult to regulate and enforce. In looking at the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding ancillary uses, the only difference between the proposal as it exists and other uses that can occur in a BC zone is the fact that this is one that requires a Conditional Use Permit. It is supposed to be a community related facility for the general benefit of the entire community. Other than that there are other uses that can occur within a BC zone that can have the same size and space capacity and are not restricted in the types of ancillary events they can conduct within that building. Staff believes using that sort of standard, or placing that sort of restriction, is not consistent with the underlying BC zoning designation and would unnecessarily restrict the types of uses which can occur within that facility. Mr. Wilson called Council attention to Staff's recommendation as it appears in Council packets to deny the appeal filed by Mr. Smith under AP-95-167 and that the Council uphold the appeal filed by Mr. Hodgson and the Edmonds Floral & Arts Foundation under AP-95-169, both for the reasons cited in the packet. Mayor Hall described for the audience the procedures and time limits involved in the hearing. City Attorney Snyder clarified that while there are two appellants, only one is provided rebuttal. Under City Ordinance, the applicant for any proposal always maintains the burden of proof. Mr. Smith does not have the burden of proof; the applicant Edmonds Floral & Art Foundation do which is the reason they are provided rebuttal time and the other appellant is not. Mayor Hall then opened the hearing. Mr. Snyder announced that Councilmember Myers had received ex parte communication regarding this matter which needs to be placed into the record so that all parties have an opportunity to address it. He advised that if any other Councilmembers had received communications, under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, now was the time to disclose the fact. Mayor Hall announced receipt of letters from Josephine Fye, Alice Owens, Alene Jensen, J. E. Francis, Sally Hyde, and Pat and Warren LaFon. Mr. Myers also received communication from Marilyn Young and Betty Willett. Council President Petruzzi, Councilmember Earling, Councilmember Fahey, and Councilmember Kasper also received communications from Ms. Young and Betty Willett. Mr. Snyder placed copies of all documents on the sign-up table for the review by the audience. Heidi Medina, 591 - 12th Ave. N., Edmonds, spoke on behalf of the applicant/appellant. She stated Maudie and Ed Hodgson are the anonymous donors all have heard about. They are donating a gift of a floral and arts community hall. This community needs such a. facility. The Hodgson's dream is to have a facility like this within walking distance of downtown where everyone can enjoy it, even if they don't drive. They have already spent a substantial sum of money in surveys, traffic studies, redesigning the project twice to meet with community and neighborhood approval. Mr. Hodgson had originally hoped to celebrate his birthday in the facility, but that is a use which would be prohibited under the Hearing Examiner's decision. Mr. and Mrs. Hodgson would now like to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary in the facility, a use Ms. Medina hopes would not be restricted. Ms. Medina also logged in with the City Clerk notes from other individuals unable to attend the hearing. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 5 Peter O'Connor, 147 Finch Place, Bainbridge Island, is the architect on the project. He described the planned building and used drawings and the overhead to enhance his description. He advised they tried to step the building back from the street to provide for landscaping. Also, there was a residential neighbor on the North who has a tree they wish to keep. Accordingly, they have included a buffer so as to not disrupt the neighbor's property. The building screens the parking. There are 14 on -site parking spaces, and the other 10 will be by paying fees or sharing areas. Mr. O'Connor also pointed out that they tried to break up the facade to keep the building in line with the residential character, thus making the building less imposing. As heard earlier, the building has been redesigned based on neighborhood concerns that were expressed. This project is for non-profit public use. Mr. O'Connor noted that if this were a for -profit venture, they would not be at this Council meeting. He further commented that the primary use of this building would be during off peak hours, evenings and weekends. He feels it will help support Edmonds' vitality during these off hours. City Attorney Snyder advised that while discussed, the audience had not been questioned with regard to objections to the participation of any Council member. Upon questioning, Mayor Hall received no response. Mr. Hanken reserved five minutes to be set aside for rebuttal. Sally Hyde, 152 Third Ave. S., Suite 101, Edmonds, spoke on behalf of Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith opposes the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed building. Her comments, with attachment, have been provided to Council. She came before Council with the understanding that the City and the audience want to bend over backwards to help Mr. Hodgson build this building because it is for public benefit. However, the problem is the Community Development Code requires a certain amount of parking based on the design and the use of the building. That is not being complied with, and that is the basis of the objection. She also reminded Council that this is a de novo review and is not supposed to be a rubber stamp of the Hearing Examiner's decision. It is up to Council to make an independent evaluation. Ms. Hyde discussed the ways in which this building will be used as described by the applicant. She feels that common sense dictates that a building this size needs more than 14 on -site parking spaces. She stated that the Planner used a formula of 1 space per 500 square feet not based on stated criteria or rational basis. Ms. Hyde described the facility as an art gallery and discussed the required parking for that classification. She believes the building comes under the definition of assembly hall which requires even more parking spaces. Based on the assumption that everyone wants to be as lenient as possible, she went through her attachment and described the most lenient definitions possible which in fact comply with the Community Development Code. Based on the most lenient legally based criteria, she feels 38 parking spaces to be the least that the City Council can require based on her interpretation of the codes. Anyone who lives and works in downtown Edmonds can tell you that there is not the capacity for the parking in the general area to absorb 150+ people that may descend on the building. Ms. Hyde reported that the applicant submitted a traffic study. For reasons set forth in her letter she does not believe it to be applicable, and the code itself does not allow the Council to ignore the code because the applicant has decided there is sufficient on -street parking. She doesn't think it the responsibility of the surrounding property owners or surrounding businesses to absorb the extra traffic. It will hurt their business. If the Council wants to allow this applicant to not comply with the codes, then it ought to reach their decision on that basis and not on some arbitrary formula that has no basis in law or fact. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 6 Mr. Snyder asked if it was Ms Hyde's client's position that this parking has to be provided on site as opposed to in lieu of parking or other joint use agreements. Ms. Hyde responded that the code requires the City Council to consider the ability of the proposal to provide for adequate on -site parking and the traffic impacts of the proposal on the neighborhood. It is mandatory. Yes, she feels it is a consideration Council must take into consideration. However, it is her client's position that the City has to make the applicant comply with the code. If Council can figure out some other way for him to comply with the code by joint use parking, then that is O.K. Mr. Snyder indicated Community Development Code Section 17.50.010(a)(1) provides for a mix. He asked Ms. Hyde if it was her position that the Council needs to consider it and make a finding of the appropriate number of on -site parking spaces as part of the total mix. Ms. Hyde responded in the affirmative. Mayor Hall announced the opening of the public portion of the hearing. Dee Adamek, 8619 - 184th Street S.W., Edmonds, commented that as a member of the Edmonds Garden Club, she works with other members to plant the hanging baskets and corner gardens downtown. Their club objective is to support horticulture and all projects required to make Edmonds a special place in which to live. The club will benefit from the Foundation building. This gift from the Hodgsons to the City of Edmonds is an inspiring opportunity for all residents to share in their love of all beautiful and useful things that nature has provided. Forrest Sarver, 551 Fir Place, Edmonds, suggested the schools may want someplace in downtown Edmonds to display the artwork of their students. He also noted there will be flower shows that will bring money to the merchants. He stated he had been reading that businesses were leaving Edmonds, and he believes this project will bring business back to Edmonds. It would also provide meeting places for a lot of organizations in need. Mr. Sarver requested Council vote for this project. David Burrus, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce President, reported that the Chamber Board of Directors, on behalf of its members, unanimously supports the granting of the permit applied for by the Edmonds Floral & Arts Foundation. Mr. Burrus commended Mr. Smith for thinking about parking as it has also been a recent issue for involvement. Mr. Burrus believes it has been well addressed by Staff. He also believes it is something that needs to be considered in the future in any big plan, but he believes it has at this time been handled. The Chamber would like to see the City do as much as possible to make this project happen. Shirley, Frank, 604 Elm Place, past Arts Commissioner and currently board member of Edmonds in Bloom, asked for a show of support signs from the audience. She commented that if we can't work together to work out parking, then we are failing as a city. She has confidence in both the City employees and the Councilmembers that this will be addressed and taken care of. J. David Smith lives at 222 - 4th Avenue North and works at 220 - 4th Avenue North, commented that when he first was involved with this project, he had trepidation about it because he thought that parking had not been taken into consideration and some other things were being done that were not necessarily required of other people doing things in the city. However, the process has corrected a lot of problems or matters on which he previously objected. Mr. Smith is for the proposal. The only concern that still exists is the parking issue. He suggested the City could purchase some property contiguous to where this project is which would provide more than adequate parking, and there would not be a concern over how many people use the facility. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 7 Ken Mattson, 725 Daley Street, read a letter from Darrell Marmion (copy in Council packets) who was previously opposed to the project and now feels sufficient changes have made it a good project. Mr. Marmion also feels that usage of the building should be more open to other clubs or groups so that more of the public could utilize the building, and it may be more self-sufficient. Warren LaFon, 123 - 4th Avenue North, has never been against the building, but is very concerned about the parking. He thinks the building would be a great asset for the city. Community Code provides specifically for community facility parking. Mr. LaFon believes the presentation given for 40 cars was logical and would take the pressure off of the local businesses in the neighborhood. He asked Council to uphold its own codes. Patricia LaFon, 546 Paradise Lane, is also not against the project but thinks the parking issue must be further addressed. She explained her arrival at a building capacity figure of closer to 500 people. She thinks that even the in lieu parking is in question. Parking does not take care of itself. Ms. LaFon called attention to her letter where she questioned the applicant's use of the phrase "up to 50 people" when each of the meeting rooms hold over 150 people. Muryl Medino, 22905 - 108th Avenue West, supports the project because she feels the city and community need it. The business community is always looking for ways of bringing people into Edmonds. Here is an opportunity to get a building for everyone in the community to use. It meets the criteria as interpreted by the City Planner. She thinks this is a great gift, but if we do not want to put up with the parking as is and as planned, we won't get anything. She urged Council to take advantage of the opportunity to get a building that will be self-supporting and not at taxpayers expense. Chris Guitton, 1012 Viewland Way, strongly favors the project. He has counted at least 18 organizations that are non-profit that meet regularly, most weekly, and they all meet in rooms that are grossly inadequate. He thinks it is time that a center be offered to them for regular meetings in a decent environment. He requested Council to support the project. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO EXTEND THE HEARING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, was also in favor of the project. However, he questioned parking. The parking requirements referred to by Staff and the chart made up make him wonder whether Staff had the authority to create an amendment to the Edmonds code without proper hearing process. He asked the City Attorney whether or not when these changes and determinations are made, whether there was supposed to be a public hearing to determine whether or not that is an acceptable thing. He thinks Staff exceeded their authority. He could not find any reference in the code to 1/500 so believes Staff was pushing the limit a little too much. On that basis he believes § 17.50.030 needs to be complied with. He does not believe it has been. The only reason the downtown character remains the same is the parking requirements. He would not like something like this put in and then suffer from the fact people couldn't get to it or had no place to park their car. He suggested the 20 zoned commercial properties North of Edmonds Street are being penalized for their development if we do not have each one comply with the code. If we lift the parking restrictions for one, it should be done for everyone. Suzetta Glenn, 9115 Park Road, member of the Edmonds Arts Commission, read a letter from William J. Kennelly, President of Kennelly Keys & Music, who has offered to support the project, students and teachers, through the donation of the use of a grand piano. The offer was made on a yearly basis and subject to review for each following year. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 8 Rebecca Adams, 1221 - 8th Avenue South, owns the business "Rebecca's" at 315 - 5th Avenue South, is a member of GREAT as part of the Business Recruitment Team and a member of the Merchant's Association and Edmonds In Bloom. As a merchant, she sees the Center as being a tremendous opportunity to benefit the entire community. It will create job opportunities, generate important consumer dollars and help create civic pride. As long as we continue to create obstacles such as parking, we are discouraging a healthy business climate which directly effects residents, merchants and the overall economic climate which many are trying desperately to improve. The facility is well planned, residentially sensitive, and is a tremendous, generous gift to the community. To turn this public gift away would set a terrible precedent for any future endowment and be a terrible disservice to the community at large. Common sense dictates that we not throw away this opportunity. She believes too much focus is being placed on a very small portion of the total benefit of this facility. Eileen Johnston, 1021 Spruce, spoke in favor of the project. She feels the parking issue to be complex and fairly well covered. She noted concern that street parking is given up for ferry passengers to park their cars all day when local organizations are frequently made to walk distances or under adverse circumstances in order to get to their meeting places. She said it seems that the people that are working in Edmonds and giving service to Edmonds should be given some priority in parking over the ferry travelers. This facility would allow her garden club to bring in large shows to benefit Edmonds In Bloom and tourism. Mayor Hall closed the public portion because of time limit restrictions. Jeff Wilson responded to issues that were raised. Regarding Mr. Hertrich's question of the City Attorney, he said interpretation of the code is a daily function of the staff. Regarding Chapter 17.50, there is a specific provision giving Staff that authority -- 17.50.030(d). Regarding a comment in Ms. Hyde's letter, she wanted to be more restrictive than that. She wanted it to be the most similar use listed in a community facility zone. Mr. Wilson said the code provided for "the most similar use listed" which means a whole range of opportunities provided through the chapter. If Staff decides it doesn't fit within any of the specific categories, then it is their responsibility and requirement to determine what the most similar use listed is in all of the parking standards, then apply that to a particular use. It is not a code amendment but is a daily function. The foundation for the parking standards are all based on Chapter 17.50 and based on use listed. The memorandum Mr. Wilson provided was an internal memo to Community Services Director Paul Mar based on the evaluation of the project as submitted and answering questions. Because it was internal, all codes considered were not specified. He said all provisions considered were in 17.50 and suggested that Ms. Hyde would have to agree that that chapter does in fact provide for a 11500 number, making it not an arbitrary number. Parking standards are not determined on a theoretical maximum usage but on what is determined to be a more normal expectation. If parking were based on maximum usage, there would be more parking than businesses. Responding to the on -site parking comments, Mr. Wilson stated in lieu or lease arrangements can be made. If the applicant wishes to provide more than five spaces through the in lieu method, it does require a public hearing and approval by the Council. That determination has not been made by the applicant. One of the conditions of the Hearing Examiner is that prior to their obtaining an occupancy permit, that issue must be resolved. Regarding capacity figures within the building, those numbers are derived from the UBC and Fire Code and are based on public safety concerns and exiting. It provides a theoretical maximum capacity, based on the number of exits available, that you can safely move people out of the building in the event of an emergency. It is not there to dictate what will occur but what can safely occur within that building. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 9 Council President Petruzzi asked for clarification of his understanding of the situation. He confirmed that the Hearing Examiner has placed a restriction of use to a capacity of 96. It seems to Mr. Petruzzi that this property is being penalized because if it was a permitted use such as a restaurant or office building that restriction would not be placed on it. Mr. Wilson said there are two restrictions: Fire Code and Building Code that place operating restrictions based on safety concerns and you have restrictions that may effect the size of a building that are related to bulk requirements, setbacks, building heights, number of parking spaces, and how all can be accommodated on the property. It can be massaged into a number of different configurations. Mr. Wilson reiterated that parking is not derived from an occupancy standard. When the Hearing Examiner arrived at that calculation, he used a formula stated within his decision that assumes 4 people per car, 24 parking spaces, and came up with 96. Councilmember Kasper inquired about the parking study. Mr. Wilson said the traffic and parking study was provided by the applicant as part of their environmental review documents. He provided copies to the Council. Mr. Wilson stated this document has already been entered into the record as one of the attachments to the Staff report provided to the Hearing Examiner. James Hanken, attorney for Mr. Hodgson and member of the Foundation Board, thought that with regard to the parking issue, Mr. Wilson covered the topic well. He addressed two issues which he described as the principal issues involved: the issues regarding the 96 person occupancy limit and the use restriction. In order for this facility to be self-sufficient, both of these restrictions will severely hamper the ability of the Foundation to operate on a self-sufficient basis. The floral exhibits will require more occupancy than 96; the art exhibits will require more; fund-raisers will require more than that. All are necessary components to the project. Additionally, the other types of uses are basically how we are going to pay their way. These components are needed to pay utilities and other operation expenses. Councilmember Earling addressed the applicant/appellants representative. Mr. Earling's understanding is that the Hodgsons do not find objection with any of the Hearing Examiner's decision or the Planning Division Advisory Report with the exception of Item 6 in the Hearing Examiner's decision relating to some of the discussion covered by Mr. Hanken. This fact was confirmed. Mr. Earling then confirmed that the Hodgsons have no objection to in some matter satisfying the 10 additional parking stalls that are required on either recommendation. Councilmember Earling next addressed Mr. Wilson. He asked how much money was currently in the in lieu parking fund and what the fee per stall would be if Mr. Hodgson would choose to use this as a resolution to satisfying the 10-stall requirement. Mr. Wilson said there are two dollar amounts in the in lieu fund that can be charged. If it is conversion/remodel of a space increasing the number of stalls required, the amount is $2,100 per space. If it is a new facility and new parking generated by that facility, it is $4,300 per space. In looking at the budget, the ending cash balance of the in lieu parking fund for 1995 would be $85,270 as of this date. Mr. Earling asked if that was a current total or if, in fact, since that total was provided there have been other in lieu of parking contributions made. Mayor Hall called upon Mr. Housler for a response. Mr. Housler advised that as of October 31 there is $87,000 in the account. Mr. Wilson advised this amount may change by the end of the year. Councilmember Fahey asked Mr. Wilson for information regarding agreements for shared parking. Mr. Wilson responded that in the BC Zone, or downtown business district zone as set out in Chapter 17.50, it is defined as any area within the BC or CW area. For businesses located within that area, they are allowed to provide parking either on site or in lieu of or by leasing spaces anywhere within the downtown business district. If it is not within that area, there is a limitation on proximity. The shared City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 10 parking arrangements are under Joint Use Provisions in Chapter 20.30 in the ECDC. The criteria are spelled out in 20.03.030 that allows for different fluctuations of usage and provides a cross -over. There is a process for doing this which is reviewed by the Community Development Director; there is criteria to spell out the specific provisions allowing that to occur. Councilmember Fahey asked about the possibility of the City itself entering into a shared agreement because of the down time when the City offices are not open. Mr. Wilson deferred to Mr. Snyder. Mr. Snyder said the code is clear that the mixture -- how you provide parking -- is not a part of this decision but is something that has to cleared up before a building permit is issued. It may appear on the record to be unfair for the Council to be negotiating a joint use parking agreement while it is reaching a decision on how many parking spaces are required. One of the required findings tonight will be that this proposal complies with the zoning code, meaning that it provides that the number of spaces the code required will be provided for, both on or off site. That can be done through joint use parking agreements, by the in lieu parking fund, by on -site parking or any other method that the Council permits. That does not need to be determined until the building permit application is submitted. The Council's determination tonight is to decide how many spaces the code requires the facility to provide. If, having made that decision, at some date in the future, the City decides in its other capacity as a proprietary land owner to enter into a joint parking agreement with this facility, you could make that decision separately. His advice was to keep those issues apart. Determine how many spaces tonight, and at some future date look at the other three or four options provided by the code. Councilmember Kasper asked Mr. Snyder how Council can control the 14 stalls in the back so they do not end up being staff or otherwise reserved. He expressed concern that the public would not know where the other parking stalls were. He asked if the process could be reversed so that staff is parking elsewhere. Mr. Snyder responded that one of the required findings is that parking provided will not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. That sort of issue is certainly a condition that could be imposed. The Hearing Examiner adopted the Staff's conservative viewpoint on parking calculation and then in the interest of making sure it didn't have an impact limit the use. Another method might be to take off that restriction on use but impose other conditions such as Mr. Kasper mentioned. Responding to Mr. Snyder's questions, Mr. Wilson noted that the chart and memorandum was dated May 3; the parking study on this project has an August date. The Code sections used were § 17.50.020.b.5 which relates to some of the office spaces that will be provided for the employees. Given the meeting room space that can be related to that office space, it falls within the standard use for businesses and professional offices with on -site customer service. That is intended to assume that there will be customer traffic to that facility. The second standard was under 17.50.020.b.8 which has to do with commercial recreation facilities, realizing this space has the opportunity to be rented out and used for a number of different types of functions. Mr. Snyder commented he feels it important to remember that Council wears several different hats. Tonight it is the quasi-judicial hat, and any decision must be based on code requirements. After the City determines how many parking spaces are required, if at a future time the City decides, there are ways that the City could participate in order to help this project along that are within the capabilities. He again suggested those issues not be mixed tonight. He advised the audience that this is not a question of whether this is a good facility for the public, but one of the required findings before it issues a Conditional Use Permit is that the application complies with the code. He suggested that in the discussions Council address what is the ordinance requirement regarding parking. We are discussing a difference between 24 as the Staff found, and Hearing Examiner approved, and the 38 that Ms. Hyde's presentation addressed. Council's decision must be based on substantial and competent evidence in the City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 11 record. The zoning official's interpretation carries some weight because of their presumed expertise. The second issue is whether limitation of use is appropriate. That ties back to parking. The basic issue is how much parking is required, and are their conditions that should be imposed to limit the impact the facility will have on the neighborhood. Limitations on use are quite unusual, and he suggested that the parking might want to drive the decision. The public portion of the hearing, and the matter was remanded to Council for deliberation and action. Council President Petruzzi discussed the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding capacity. In the material he has read, he is not sure upon what it is based. He feels the Hearing Examiner is placing a restriction on the project which Council would not put on a project that did not have to go through a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Petruzzi does not understand the reasoning, and he therefore doesn't see how the Hearing Examiner can be upheld in that regard. Regarding parking, he thinks Staff has made a very good analysis. He believes the case has been made. In terms of the parking, the project does comply with the zoning codes. Council President Petruzzi said that he can see no reason to restrict the capacity to 96 when there are numerous restaurants and theaters in town that do not have those restrictions on them. He believes the Hearing Examiner was over -reaching. Mr. Petruzzi also opined that government should be of assistance in helping a community to move forward and not a hindrance in allowing any project being put into effect. Councilmember Earling commented with regard to the parking issue. In listening to the evidence presented by both sides, he is persuaded that the City's analysis is accurate. The analysis done by Mr. Wilson in May is substantial and convincing. He sees the project as a supreme effort on the part of a local neighborhood who realize that they will have a new neighbor that will add a different mix of traffic to the neighborhood. However, as heard tonight, they find that acceptable. He sees the information brought forward by the business community as one of support, also with understanding that that will bring a different mix to the business community. Councilmember Earling has seen the effort made by the Hodgsons over a period of time in working with the local community on this project of good faith. He believes the architectural renderings compliment the neighborhood. He complimented the City for their effort in trying to work all of these issues through to some kind of conclusion. Though he understands the parking issue is not to be decided tonight, it is his hope that the Hodgsons will consider the in lieu parking fund because it may help the City address a larger problem of parking. If we have in the vicinity of $90,000 in the working fund, and if the Hodgsons were convinced that was the best way to solve the problems, their contribution to that fund would probably allow the City to move forward and look into the purchase of a piece of property that may in fact leverage their 10 spaces into considerably more. He stressed the Hodgsons had no obligation to do that, but he feels it would be a great benefit for all to take it into consideration. Councilmember Fahey found the most compelling argument was Mr. Wilson's comment on trying to establish a parking level for normal daily usage. She doesn't think it can be denied that on occasion there may be larger numbers utilizing the facility, but that situation exists throughout the city. It is accommodated because it is good for the community. She listed numerous times during which there is a high volume of parking requests. She believes those occasions are the exception rather than the rule. She feels very comfortable with the analysis the staff has done in citing the parking requirements based on normal daily usage. For that reason she is willing to accept Staff's recommendation for the parking and resolve the issue in favor of the way Staff has made its ruling. Councilmember Myers agreed with his colleagues. He also doesn't believe Council should get into the precedent -setting area of determining occupancy by parking. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 12 Councilmember Kasper thinks this should proceed based on what the staff has recommended. He thinks that it will ultimately resolve itself with the City getting into the parking business, LIDS, etc. He appreciates the gift and supports the staff on this. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI, TO DENY AP-95-167. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI, TO APPROVE AP-95-169. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION WITH THE ELIMINATION OF CONDITION NO.6 AS PART OF THAT DECISION. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hall called a five minute break, reconvening the meeting at 9:32 p.m. 4A. DISCUSSION OF FIRE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY pp( �aµtFire Chief Springer advised Council of the need for an emergency snorkel repair. During normal Not maintenance, Dave Sittauer, Department Mechanic, was replacing hydraulic lines and found a deficit. P..1R Mr. Sittauer and Chief Springer discussed how the safety valve on the hydraulic cylinder moves the snorkel. It must be replaced, and the truck cannot be put into service until the new cylinder is installed. The factory does have a retrofit for approximately $7,500 which was asked to come from the Council Contingency Fund. Chief Springer noted this is a 1969 truck with technology from the late 1950s and early 1960s. This is for the truck which is proposed to be replaced in 1999. That represents a 30-year span with the recommended practice being 25 years. They have looked at options of leasing a vehicle , of loaning a vehicle, and what is on the used market at this time, and there no viable options seen. The Department recommendation is to concur with the mechanic and have this vehicle repaired and placed on line. Down time will be approximately a week and a half. Chief Springer then explained what is being done in the interim. Chief Springer also advised there were not sufficient funds within the Department for this repair. Council President Petruzzi welcomed new Council members -elect Dick VanHollebeke and Jim White noting they were present in the audience. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO AUTHORIZE UP TO $7,500 FOR EMERGENCY REPAIR OF THE SNORKEL TRUCK AND THAT THOSE FUNDS BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. Mr. Earling suggested if the Fire Department looked among its various funds, it might be able to come up with $7,500. He doesn't understand that if there were funds anticipated to be left over at the end of the fiscal year why we wouldnit consider taking it out of there rather than the Council Contingency Fund. That option had not been explored. Council President Petruzzi confirmed that Equipment Rental had advised Chief Springer there were insufficient funds remaining. In talking with Finance, Public Works Superintendent Noel Miller stated it was determined there is a maximum of $2-3,000 left that was dedicated and transferred over to Equipment Rental from the Fire Department to maintain the fire vehicles in 1995. Mr. Miller also confirmed that the remaining $2,000 minimum was needed for the remainder of the year for regular City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 13 equipment maintenance. Mr. Sittauer indicated the anticipated maintenance needs will completely deplete the fund. Mr. Earling's concern is that every time there is a shortfall, the automatic assumption is to get the money from the Council Contingency Fund. He doesn't support that idea and hasn't heard any alternatives. If the motion is pursued he will vote no. Council President Petruzzi indicated Mr. Earling made a good point with regard to the funding. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED TO AMEND HIS PREVIOUS MOTION TO PROVIDE THAT BY NEXT TUESDAY, CHIEF SPRINGER RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR RETURNING THE $7,500 TO THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED. 4B. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 88TH AVENUE WEST STREET �(0 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (LID 214) AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT al� Councilmember Fahey asked that this matter be pulled from the Consent. The last information she received was that there were still quite a few issues to be resolved with the contractor and still some concerns being expressed by the residents. Council has not received any additional information or feedback either related to the resolution of the problems with the contractor or any assurance from the residents that they find the project acceptable. She wanted to have that substantive information before she can agree to approve the recommendation. She also asked for comments on the possibility of waiting a week so that there will be the opportunity to hear from residents of that area regarding this project. City Engineer Jim Walker visited the site with the engineer who did the design and looked at the work. The contractor finished most of the items that were required and has agreed to cost reductions on one item. The residents were not involved in the decision as to whether or not the project is final. That is the City's responsibility. If input is desired, it can be done. Ms. Fahey's concern was the discussion that was had about the retention problem and the possibility of being able to utilize some of those moneys to cover any additional corrections that needed to be made that were not brought up to standards by the contractor. She wants assurance before releasing the funds that there are not going to be problems the City will have to clean up without the ability to utilize any of the retention fund. Mr. Walker explained the retention does stay in place for 25 days. The contractor also bonds for a period of one year. If there is defective work within that time, we can still require him to correct it. The contractor did make settlement offers to individual property owners. Mayor Hall announced there was one call from a resident who is now happy with the roadway. Councilmember Kasper questioned the $6,000 that is for side sewers installed where they didn't exist for future subdivisions. The sum was corrected to be $3,000. He asked if you could pick up latecomers which would normally be in the LID. It was not in the original LID to put the sewers in. It was discovered late in the process. It was also not part of the proposed LID work. Mr. Walker indicated Mr. Kasper was correct that we may have an opportunity when they come back in to recover that. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 14 Councilmember Fahey asked for further clarification of the ramifications of the retention fund not being disbursed for 45 days. Mr. Snyder indicated the primary purpose and only use of that protection fund is to pay subcontractors, workmen, materialmen and suppliers. In very rare instances would a citizen access that fund due to recent changes in State law. It was determined that if the City had to make adjustments to the property, any reimbursement would come from bond proceeds and not this fund. Mr. Snyder stated Mr. Walker had a checklist of correction items he went through with the contractor. As stated, some of the items were corrected, and others resulted in price reductions to the City. The majority of the claims of citizens that remain unresolved have to do with dirt being tracked into their houses and other damages the City has not paid for. The results of claims for damages to vehicles are believed to be in Small Claims Court at this point. Councilmember Fahey again expressed her desire for reassurances that the individual property owner problems are dealt with correctly. Mr. Walker added that the ombudsman has been involved as there are still matters with the neighbors that have nothing to do with the contract. COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO ACCEPT THE 88TH AVENUE W. STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND APPROPRIATE $10,417.50 FROM FUND 412-100 AND $3,252.45 FROM FUND 412-300. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hall left the meeting at this time. 5. BUDGET WORK SESSION - Review of Community Services Department 6Ef� �'p Paul Mar, Community Services Director, introduced staff members who were present to respond to CoM^°questions. In particular, he introduced Michael Linn, Construction Engineer, who began in his position ERv' in August of this year. Councilmember Earling informed the Council that he will need to leave the meeting at this time due to a business matter. He stated he would like to have Administrative Services Director Art Housler do a thorough analysis of the revenue projections for the next year. Mr. Earling believes the Council needs to have a firm grasp of the revenue projections before it can start obligating expenditures. Council President Petruzzi suggested beginning next week's Budget Work Session with a discussion of revenue projections. Mr. Petruzzi noted a concern with the amount of revenue projected from court revenues. Police Chief Tom Miller responded the inclusion of the third traffic officer and six more patrol officers would justify the additional $100,000 in revenue. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Concerning the Community Services budget, Mr. Petruzzi noted areas where further information is desired: building maintenance is down 47%; park acquisition is up 251%; capital improvements is down 66%. He further noted two other concerns of increases in over time and travel. Mr. Mar stated for the entire Community Services Department, the over time figure for 1995 was $21,000, and the proposed figure for 1996 is slightly under $30,000. He stated a lot of work will need to take place in 1996, such as moving into the Financial Center Building, that will not happen in 1997. It is Mr. Mar's belief that the usage of over time is the appropriate way to staff that need. Regarding travel, Mr. Mar stated there is a proposed out-of-state trip. There was no out-of-state trip budgeted in 1995 for Community Services Administration. City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 15 Councilmember Fahey inquired about Professional Services. Mr. Mar responded not all of the 1995 funds budgeted for professional services will be expended, and those funds will be carried over to 1996. Those funds plus the $10,000 requested in 1996 will be sufficient. There is a new account, Fund 126, that has been established and all costs for the renovation, furnishings, and consultants for the Financial Center Building will come out of that account. Councilmember Fahey also inquired about a request for a laser printer ($1,000) that was also budgeted in 1995. Mr. Mar stated that when the microfiche reader/printer was brought forward for purchase this year, the cost was more than the original estimate, and the funds budgeted for the laser printer in 1995 were used for that purpose. The replacement of the laser printer was deferred until 1996. Regarding the Planning Division budget, Council President Petruzzi noted an increase of 72% for fl.01 equipment. Planning Manager Rob Chave stated his division, as well as the Building division, are in a 61V1s'� situation where they have older computers that are not able to keep up with the data base software that is $µis in use. They are trying to replace computers on a rotating basis each year. The GIS development request is to expand the capabilities of producing large scale maps. Mr. Chave responded to questions and stated the bulk of the salary increases in Planning is due to a new position that would come in with the annexations. Councilmember Myers commented there is more money allocated for travel in all of the departments than was allocated in 1995. Mr. Housler indicated one reason is that 24 1/2 employees are being added due to the annexations. Mr. Mar explained that in the 1995 Planning Division Budget, there are four funded positions. Only three of those funded positions were filled in 1995. The fourth position has just been filled. Essentially, one position with benefits went unfilled for the entire year. Regarding the Engineering Division, City Engineer Jim Walker addressed professional services. He ell vggf stated that due to Growth Management, they are required to do additional study to determine traffic 'AtAmitigation procedures. f In discussing the Parks and Recreation budget, Council President Petruzzi suggested language be added Pit t' to the salary budget description indicating that all prior authorized positions will be fully -funded in 1996 A,ifwhich will explain the increase. Councilmember Myers questioned equipment requests, noting some of W66� the same items were also requested in 1995. Parks and Recreation Manager Arvilla Ohlde responded that those items were not purchased in 1995 and are therefore being requested again in 1996. Responding to questions concerning advertising, Ms. Ohlde indicated the request for funds to advertise on the internet provides another mechanism to reach the public. It is anticipated it will be revenue generating. Council President Petruzzi pointed out an increase in Grounds Maintenance/Equipment. Ms. Ohlde read a memo justifying this request; the memo referred to the need for an additional vehicle. Discussion followed concerning the Public Works budget. Council President Petruzzi questioned the POPIc request for video equipment. Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Tom King indicated the equipment is to OV& improve the Council Chambers to allow the public to view monitors towards the back of the room. The 'j�vpg EY City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 16 equipment would be able to be moved to a different facility if needed. Mr. Petruzzi commented this is a lot of money and this may be one item that could be removed from the budget. Councilmember Myers commented he is hoping that sometime in the future there would be an opportunity to allow this type of improvement. Councilmembers next questioned the request for weight equipment. Public Works Superintendent Noel Miller stated this is a proposal to put together an exercise room in the Public Works Center. Each section would contribute money towards the purchase of an exercise room. This would be a one time purchase. Councilmember Petruzzi commented he would find it difficult to support this due to the fact the Council is facing a zero -based budget. Councilmember Kasper noted when the building was built the exercise room was part of the design. The Public Works staff do a good deal of lifting; perhaps this could be phased in. Mr. Miller stated it is the intent of the weight room to be a preventative program. Council President Petruzzi suggested there are shortfalls in the budget at this time; he believes there are better places this money could be used. s Under the Streets budget, Mr. Miller pointed out the increase in the salaries is due to the proposal to hire f�E one additional staff member for street maintenance for the annexations. Mr. Petruzzi noted a large increase in the interfund ($17,000), and requested a memo explaining the increase. An increase in salaries under the Water budget was explained by Water/Sewer Supervisor Ron Holland. 14Rf6R He stated there is not a request for a new employee. Two employees were out for 132 days last year, w6fif which amounted to $10,000 that was not paid to them (60% was paid by the Department of Labor and Industries). Also, one employee will be retiring in 1996 and $22,000 was allocated for his wages pay- out and MEBT. f Regarding the Treatment Plant salaries, Mr. Mar stated the increase is due to a full 12 month funding of REAtM6d all positions. There has been a high turn over of staff at the Treatment Plant. Wastewater Treatment �DANT Plant Manager Steve Koho stated the increase in professional services is due to the need for help with the VD69f, permit reapplication. The discharge permit is up for renewal. Concerning building maintenance, Mr. Koho stated there is inadequate heating and cooling in their building. There was a design error when the building was built. Fleet Maintenance Supervisor Greg Ramsland responded to questions concerning Equipment Rental. He dP�,Er� reported two cars are being added to the fleet for the Esperence area. The total number of cars will be goN.ro f nine leased cars, one K-9 car, one special operations car, 3 motorcycles, one van, 3 detective cars, and DO6& five staff vehicles including the chiefs. Mr. Petruzzi stated he would like a list of all vehicles by department. 6. MAYOR No report. 7. COUNCIL Due to the lateness of the hour, there were no Councilmember reports. There being no further business come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m. D LAUR A L, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK City Council Approved Minutes November 14, 1995 Page 17 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. NOVEMBER 14, 1995 SPECIAL MEETING 6 30 11A )WIC IVE SESSION ON LEGAL AND REAL ESTATE MATTERS CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 1995 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS # 3249S THRU # 5086F FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 6, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $136,403.38 (D) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR PURCHASE OF MONUMENTS FOR COMMUNAL BURIAL SITE AT EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY (E) APPROVAL OF PETTY CASH EXPENDITURES FOR MONTH OF OCTOBER 1995 (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 88TH AVENUE WEST STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (LID 214) AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH JUDITH STOLOFF ASSOCIATES FOR HOUSING STUDY ($20,000) 3. (15 Min.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REFUNDING 1991 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 4. (60 Min.) HEARING ON TWO APPEALS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EDMONDS FLORAL & ARTS FOUNDATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FLORAL & ARTS CENTER LOCATED AT 203 AND 211 4TH AVENUE NORTH (Appellants: Marvin Smith and Edgar Hodgson; Applicant: Edmonds Floral and Arts Foundation and Edgar Hodgson/ File Nos. CU- 95-137, AP-95-167, and AP-95-169) 5. (90 Min.) BUDGET WORK SESSION - Review Community Services Department 6. (5 Min.) MAYOR 7. (10 Min.) COUNCIL 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 Wednesday evening at 7.00 p.m. on Channel 36, and the following Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.