Loading...
04/20/1999 City CouncilChange to genda EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 20, 1999 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Dick Van Hollebeke, Council President Pro Tem Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Council President STAFF PRESENT Paul Mar, Community Services Director Ray Miller, Development Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor James Walker, City Engineer Stephen Koho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Mgr Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Fahey expressed grief and sorrow for the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado and the loss of three people in Kosovo. She asked for a moment of silence in memory of those who died in Littleton, Colorado and Kosovo. She advised the City's flags would fly at half -mast for the remainder of the week in their memory. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO ADD AS AGENDA ITEM 7A AN ORDINANCE REGARDING A MORATORIUM ON ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Earling requested Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) V (B) Fe ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19-20,1999 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page I pprove (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29371 THROUGH #32075 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim APRIL 5, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $187,112.51. APPROVAL OF CLAIM Warrants WARRANTS #29372 THROUGH #32238 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 12, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $218,129.25 Claims for (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM DAN & GAIL Damages MEYERSON ($157.47), PAUL M. KOHOUT, DBA KOHOUT INSURANCE AGENCY ($34,786.64); AND ROSMOND E. ELLIS (PENDING) Uniform ( ) & Laundry F REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED APRIL 12, 1999 FOR A TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH Service A ONE -YEAR COST FOR EMPLOYEE UNIFORMS AND LAUNDRY SERVICE AND AWARD OF BID TO AMERICAN LINEN ($11,731.72) Purchase of (G) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED APRIL 12, 1999 FOR A 1999 HARLEY DAVIDSON Police POLICE MOTORCYCLE AND AWARD OF BID TO LYNNWOOD CYCLE BARN Motorcycle ($13,900.80) Repair WWTP REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE REPAIR TO THE INCINERATOR AND Incinerator RELATED EQUIPMENT AND AWARD TO C H MURPHY /CLARK ULLMAN ($24,975, NOT INCLUDING SALES TAX) Plaza Room Lighting (1) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE BALLASTS AND LAMPS FROM PLATT System ELECTRICAL SUPPLY FOR THE LIBRARY AND PLAZA ROOM LIGHTING SYSTEM ($9,949.66) Upgrading (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WWTP WITH TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC. FOR UPGRADING THE PROGRAMMABLE Equipment LOGIC CONTROLLERS AT THE TREATMENT PLANT Parks & Rec Petty Cash (K) AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE PETTY CASH FUND FOR PARKS AND Fund i RECREATION Fire Protect. Clothing I (L) APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT FIRE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING Reso 949 - (M) RESOLUTION NO. 949 APPROVING DEVELOPER AGREEMENT FOR THE BOO HAN Boo Han PLAZA TREE REPLACEMENT (Property Location: 22618 Hwy 99 / Applicant: Ted laza Agmt. Litzenberger, Arch /Tech International / File No. ADB- 97 -90) Item C: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 1999 Councilmember Earling advised he was not present at the April 6, 1999 Council meeting and would abstain from approval of the minutes. Approve COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY mutes of COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C. MOTION April CARRIED. THE VOTE WAS 5 VOTING IN FAVOR AND COUNCILMEMBER EARLING ABSTAINING. The item approved is as follows: (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 6,1999 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS hambers Jack McKay, 912 Cedar Street, Edmonds, said he has been instructed by Chambers Cable that he must Cable accept all the new channels installed in the Edmonds area regardless of whether he wanted or lilted the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 2 channels. Chambers Cable also informed him the City approved the channels. He asked for clarification from the City. eese Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, explained the City of Renton shoots geese due to Hazards the hazard they pose at the airport; Bellevue and Issaquah both hire patrols to control the geese. He recommended the City take action to control geese at Lake Ballinger due to the hazard they pose to aircraft flying overhead and the mess they create. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, Edmonds, reiterated his support for the underground parking garage, Parking Garage pointing out the benefit it could provide to the Cascade Symphony b y p rovidin g parking for attendees. He said the Cascade Symphony hoped to provide a shuttle to the symphony. Parking Gaylynn Beighton, 6307 147" Street SW, Edmonds, spoke in support of the underground parking Garage garage. As the chair of the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development, she felt the garage was important because parking has been an ongoing issue in Edmonds. She said at a recent Hearing Examiner hearing she attended, five of the six items included residents complaining about parking. Parking Larry Naughton, 729 Laurel Street, Edmonds, said the debate over parking in downtown has gone on Garage for several years. He recalled 35 years ago the Chamber of Commerce did a study that determined half the residents thought there was a problem and the other half thought there was a perception of a problem. He said the report that would be provided later in the meeting would confirm there is a problem. There is a shortage of 787 parking spaces in the downtown business area and a real shortage of 148 parking spaces in the central business district. He pointed out an additional 22 parking spaces will be lost when the property on 5' Avenue is developed later this year. He said the question now is not whether the garage is needed but whether it can be financed. He hoped the City could work together toward a positive solution. arking I Doug Dewer, 110 James Street, Edmonds, observed the financing for the parking garage was a Garage significant part of the debate. He encouraged the Council to consider alternate funding sources if it was determined a LID was not feasible such as a head tax on employees in the downtown area or a square footage tax. He said a head tax of $10 -12 would generate close to the amount originally proposed for the. LID. Parking Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, agreed there is a parking problem in downtown Garage Edmonds but questioned whether the LID financing would be feasible due to the small benefit area. He recommended the City increase parking requirements for development rather than decrease them which would lessen parking problems in downtown. Regarding the animal ordinance, he said several changes Animal were made to the Planning Board's proposal at a recent Council Committee meeting. He recommended Ordinance all the suggestions be returned to the Planning Board to allow them to hold another hearing and review the suggested changes. [Animal Mayor Fahey responded staff intended to return the modified animal ordinance to the Planning Board. Ordinance She explained when the animal ordinance was proposed by the Planning Board, there was strong feeling that some issues that had been raised by citizens had not been adequately addressed. Therefore, input was sought from the Community Services and Public Safety Committees. The ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning Board again before it is presented to the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 3 Chambers In response to Mr. McKay's question regarding the way Chambers Cable is providing services, Mayor Cable Fahey explained the Council discussed rates and the provision of services with Chambers Cable's Area Manager at a recent meeting. Due to the Telecommunications Act, cities have virtually no control over the provision of cable service except the way they provide services (issues of customer service). Cities cannot prescribe programming or define which channels are provided or address rates (unless rates are not comparable with rates in the area). She offered to provide additional information to Mr. McKay including a letter that is sent to citizens inquiring about this issue. In response to Mr. McKay's question whether Chambers Cable can require a customer to accept all the channels they offer at the rate they are charging, she said yes. She specifically asked Chambers Cable's Area Manager if it was possible to unbundle the channels to provide a limited package and he indicated that was not possible. The basic service they are providing is in response to the majority of the requests for service and is comparable to service provided in other areas. She said Chambers Cable was required under the City's contract to raise their service to that number of channels so that they would be competitive and provide the same type of services that are provided throughout the Puget Sound region. She summarized Chambers Cable is within their rights to provide service as they determine and it is the customer's choice whether to subscribe to the service. Council President Pro Tem. Van Hollebeke said if Mr. McKay's objection was to certain programming, customers had the ability to block certain channels. He agreed the City had no control over rates. Greenleaf/ Evans 4. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM LORI GREENLEAF/EVANS OF A REQUEST TO. Request to VACATE A PORTION OF THE 180TA STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY ADJACENT TO 8615 Vacate OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE. OR ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE VACATING SAID Portion of RIGHT -OF -WAY 180`" St. R -O -W Councilmember Nordquist advised that he would recuse himself from this discussion upon the advice of the City Attorney, as he was not present at the meeting when this decision was made. Councilmember Earling advised he would also step down, as he was not present at the meeting when this decision was made. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the Council has two options, 1) make a procedural motion to reconsider and set a hearing date, or 2) pass the ordinance reflecting the Council's previous decision. Councilmember White requested further clarification on this matter. Mr. Snyder explained if the Council reconsidered its decision, the Council would return to deliberation based on the motion Ms. Greenleaf Evans has made. He explained his conversations with Ms. Greenleaf Evans indicate a concern with only one aspect of the Council's decision, the requirement that she waive all development rights. She is willing to waive the new lot created by the vacation but would like to develop her property as she can at the present time (the two lots that are currently available). Councilmember White asked if Ms. Greenleaf Evans wished to retain the vacation. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke observed there was a dispute regarding the formula for determining the critical slopes area. Mr. Snyder said that is not an issue before the Council in the vacation. How the property could be developed and what critical areas exist would be determined via administrative procedures and the vacation would not have an impact on that issue. He stressed the vacation ordinance is completely separate from the development or subdivision of the lot with the sole Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 4 exception of the condition imposed as part of the consideration for vacation, waiving the development right. Councilmember Miller said although there were disputed facts in the information the applicant received from, staff, after reading Development Services Director Miller's report, he was satisfied with the information provided to the applicant. Further the applicant had not provided any new data, specifically a survey, to justify her position. Therefore, he did not support moving forward with the motion for reconsideration made by the applicant. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE VACATING THE RIGHT -OF -WAY. Councilmember White said one of the concerns voiced by the applicant in her motion for reconsideration was the possibility of inequity if additional portions of the right -of -way are vacated in the future, allowing adjacent properties to subdivide, a right this applicant gave up in an effort to persuade the Council to vacate the right -of -way. He asked if vacation of the right -of -way created a precedence that would legally require the Council to vacate the right -of -way for other property owners in that area. Mr. Snyder answered since the City has declared there is no reasonable likelihood of developing the property as street right -of -way; the Council will be bound by that decision in the future. The issue regarding compensation would be based on the facts of an individual case and could change radically from lot to lot. Councilmember White observed this applicant is restricted from subdividing as a condition of the vacation, a condition the surrounding property owners would not be subject to. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting additional requests to vacate the right -of -way could occur in future years when a different Council may be seated and a different record may be available. Councilmember White said he has not been persuaded that inaccurate information was given to the applicant. However, she was required to give up development rights, primarily because she was the first to request the vacation, a right others would not be required to give up. As a consequence, the applicant loses the right to develop her property in a manner adjacent properties may be able to. He said the concept behind allowing the vacation was the desire to prevent more than the one house that was proposed on the property. Mayor Fahey explained the applicant's request for vacation of the right -of -way was made based on her perception that without it they could not build on the lot. This was based on the belief that there were grades of more than 40% but that had not been determined via a survey. The applicant's current argument is that it is possible they have given up the right to subdivide (a right they had if there were not critical slopes) when they could have constructed a home on the lot without the vacation. Mayor Fahey said her understanding was the applicant was not interested in three lots but wanted to retain the right to subdivide, which they gave up as a result of a misunderstanding /misinformation. The applicant has requested reconsideration to allow her to request the requirement that the lot cannot be subdivided be waived. Councilmember Miller responded to Councilmember White's assertion that the applicant is at a disadvantage because she is the first to request the vacation, pointing out she initiated the action, not the City. The facts at the time of the decision were presented by the applicant and staff; reconsideration is requested based on different facts but the applicant has not substantiated that change by providing information staff has requested. Councilmember Miller said the only reason appropriate for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 5 reconsideration was a procedural error made by the Council which has not been shown. He recommended the Council move forward with adoption of the ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett favored reconsideration because he could not see any disadvantage to reconsideration. Although the applicant may be requesting reconsideration based on what she believes is inaccurate information, there is no compelling reason not to. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke said perhaps mistakes were made and it is the Council's responsibility to protect citizens' rights. He observed the issue appears to be the adjacent property owners could be granted broader development and thus economic rights by developing additional lots on their property. He recommended the Council give Ms. Greenleaf Evans an opportunity for reconsideration if more facts can be provided. MOTION FAILED (1 -3), COUNCILMEMBER MILLER IN FAVOR. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, THAT THE COUNCIL RECONSIDER ITS PREVIOUS DECISION REGARDING VACATING A PORTION OF 180TR STREET SW RIGHT -OF -WAY ADJACENT TO 8615 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND SET A HEARING FOR THAT PURPOSE. MOTION CARRIED (3 -1); COUNCILMEMBER MILLER OPPOSED. Mr. Snyder explained the Council is not obligated to develop a further record. He asked if the Council wished to publish this as an opportunity for the applicant to be heard on her motion to reconsider, followed by continued Council deliberation. Councilmember White answered yes. Under- 5. REPORT ON PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE ground Parking Garage Community Services Director Paul Mar explained at the January 19, 1999 meeting, a subcommittee of the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee presented a development plan and funding strategy for an underground parking garage on the western portion of the Public Safety project on the Civic Center campus. At the conclusion of their presentation, Council directed staff to prepare a timetable for the project development and to determine if the project would fit within the Public Safety complex's construction schedule without any negative impact. Staff presented the timetable to the Council on February 16 and obtained the advice from the City Attorney that the underground parking garage project should be kept separate from the Public Safety complex project. Staff also indicated at that time that there were certain due diligence tasks that needed to be completed immediately. These included an in- depth design engineering study on a site - specific solution for the garage and an appraisal to determine the boundaries of the proposed LID and the special benefit valuations within the boundary. At that time staff informed Council these studies would require consultants. At the February 1.6 Council meeting, Council reaffirmed staff should proceed with the due diligence efforts and directed staff to negotiate an appraisal consultant agreement funded by the in- lieu -of- parking fund. At the February 23 meeting, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services contract with Property Counselors for the appraisal. At the March 23 meeting, staff responded to numerous due diligence questions (exhibit 1 of the packet). Allen Safer, Property Counselors, explained the LID is defined as a geographical area within a specific improvement of public nature, which provides a special benefit to property owners within its boundaries. A special benefit is further defined as a specific, measurable increase in value of certain property in contrast to enhancement to the general area, and benefiting the public at large. He said there are property Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 6 owners within the boundaries whose value would not increase and a recommendation would be made that they not be included in any future special assessment. He said the study tasks included considering which geographical areas would have the potential to be benefited and within those boundaries determine whether there was excess demand for parking versus the supply that currently exists. Where they found there was specific benefit, they sought to determine how much potential benefit could be derived from a 100 car parking garage because the assessment cannot exceed the direct value increase to those property owners. Mr. Safer displayed Figure 1, Walking Distance Contour Lines, explaining the lines are in 100 foot increments and were established by walking the area to determine actual distances. He displayed Figure 2, Walking Distance in Downtown Seattle from Parking Facilities to Destination, explaining this graph was developed as a result of a study done for Seattle in the 1970s based on survey research to determine how far pedestrians would walk from their vehicle to different uses. " Based on the survey, it was determined virtually no one is willing to walk more than 3,000 feet (% mile), half of the survey respondents indicated they would walk no .further than one block, 25% of the respondents were willing to walk two blocks and only 10% were willing to walk more than 1,350 feet (slightly more than '/4 mile). Therefore, zones were established based on the walking distances (pink and orange boundaries on the map represent the area where 50% were willing to walk from their vehicle to a destination, the green zone was where the next 25% (or total of 75% of the respondents) were. willing to walk and the yellow zone is the furthest 10% of the people were willing to walk. Based on their study, they concluded the primary and secondary zones were represented by the pink, orange, and green areas. The yellow area was not included when considering the supply and demand for parking in this phase. Mr. Safer explained within the primary and secondary zones, they surveyed all off - street parking spaces and based on that supply, concluded there were 1,133 parking stalls devoted to non - residential uses and an additional 697 stalls for residential uses for an overall supply of 1,830 stalls. As a measurement of demand, they used the City of Edmonds parking regulations that require provision of parking stalls based on square footage by use. A blended rate of one stall per 350 square feet was used based on the parking required for general retail and eating establishments. This revealed there is . a demand within the non - residential area for 3,037 stalls of which only a portion is being met by off - street parking. They then considered on- street parking, both employee permit parking and non - permit parking and determined, based on a study conducted by the Downtown Parking Committee, that there were 1,032 stalls within the entire BC zone downtown, noting this area was beyond his study. area. This resulted in a demand for 787 stalls based on the demand from the parking regulations less the on- street and off - street parking. Recognizing there are overlapping uses such as the theater, symphony, eating establishments, etc., they subtracted all stalls related to assembly, theater, and schools (639 stalls), and determined an absolute minimum parking shortfall of 148 stalls. He said this indicates clearly there is more than enough demand to justify construction of an additional 100 parking stalls which should have: value implications to the parcels in the primary and secondary zones. He said there is an additional increment of demand to properties in the third or tertiary (yellow) zone because as on- street parking goes to the garage, it frees up stalls that can be used by properties in the yellow zone. Councilmember Plunkett asked if people would walk further in Edmonds than they would in Seattle. Mr. Safer said the survey was not of downtown Seattle but was done for the downtown Seattle plan based on six different cities throughout the United States. Councilmember Plunkett asked if they were cities the size of Seattle. Mr. Safer answered he did not have that information. When they researched the literature, this was the most definitive study they could fmd that provided enough data. . He said Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 7 Edmonds did not have the budget to replicate this type of study therefore this study was used. He said this study is used by numerous planning associations. Councilmember Plunkett asked if an assumption could be made that people who would be willing to walk three blocks in a congested downtown would be willing to walk six blocks in Edmonds. Mr. Safer said an assumption could be made but it would likely be determined that people don't like to walk, they want to park as close to their destination as possible. He said this study was a sound basis for the study area and could be supported by the parking patterns observed in the Edmonds on a busy evening. City Attorney Scott Snyder said in a LID hearing, the Council should assume the City of Seattle study, because of its general acceptance, would be included in the record. If the zone was extended and included a property owner who did not want to be included, the City would need to be prepared to fund a study to provide substantial evidence for the record. Mr. Snyder referred to the Special Benefit Conclusion on page 8 and asked if the calculation to determine the benefit (based on whether they were served by the current on- street parking) considered individuals who have a mixture of on -site spaces and have paid the City through in- lieu -of- parking funds for spaces. Mr. Safer answered no, pointing out due to the Phase 1 budget, tile analysis was done by block rather than by individual parcels in an effort to determine if there was sufficient benefit to do an analysis based on individual parcels. Mr. Snyder asked whether the City, when determining the special benefit, would need to "net out" commercial properties that had paid the City for in- lieu -of- parking spaces. Mr. Safer said that should be considered. He said the City of Poulsbo did a parking LID which included a provision for credit for property owners who paid into a fund. Councilmember Earling referred to Figure 4, the Zones Used in the Analysis, observing the pink area (primary zone) illustrating the highest and best benefit area was a combination of residential and City uses. The next highest use, the orange area, had approximately the same mix with the addition of some commercial properties. He said on a percentage basis, much of the area would be residential. Councilmember Earling asked if a benefit was prescribed to the residential area from the parking garage when formulating the LID. Mr. Safer's opinion was residential property would not increase in value as a result of off -site parking. Mr. Snyder asked how he would classify a property that is currently zoned commercial but has a single family dwelling on it. Mr. Safer answered if it is being used as a residence, it was categorized .as residential. Mr. Safer said seeking off -site opportunities for parking is common for commercial properties. The garage will cost $1.5 million for 100 spaces or $15,000 per stall. The replacement cost for individual property owners in open air parking lots would range in price from $4,000 - $5,400 (345 square feet required for each parking stall multiplied by a cost of $8 - $12 per square foot of land plus approximately $1,250 per stall for paving, striping, etc.). This amount multiplied by the number of stalls proposed equates to $400,000 - $540,000- -the maximum assessment that could be assessed for a LID in the special benefit zone. Therefore, based on the $1.5 million cost, the maximum the financing provided by the LID would be 27% - 36% of the total project cost. The balance would be required to be funded from other sources such as an in- lieu -of- parking fund, use fees for special events, or a reserve system for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 8 spaces in the garage for special events. He said during the interview process with the Floral Arts Center, they indicated the lack of parking impacts their ability to accommodate large events. Councilmember Earling recalled Mr. Safer indicated the garage would not enhance the value of residential properties and asked if it could detract from values. Mr. Safer said his experience is parking garages are generally preferred over open -air parking. Having the garage in a neighborhood would upgrade the neighborhood. Mr. Snyder observed Mr. Safer has provided a percentage of special benefit. As a property owner in the special benefit district, the City would be required to pay a proportional share of the LID. He said the City would also need to "net out" the benefit for those property owners who have paid into the in- lieu -of- parking fund, treating their spaces as if they actually existed. Responding to questions of Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke asked Mr. Mar estimated approximately 50% of the special benefit area was in the BC zone. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke said properties that are currently used as residential would not benefit from the garage; however, many of those properties are BC zoned. He asked whether the City would have the ability to recover a contribution from the owner of a BC zone property currently used as a residence when they chose to redevelop their property with a commercial use subsequent to the establishment of the LID. Mr. Snyder answered the Council already has the in- lieu -of- parking fund. The City could also require a parking impact fee. He said there was no opportunity for a late comer's fee for public improvements. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke asked the balance in the in- lieu -of- parking fund after the recent expenditures. Mr. Mar answered the balance is approximately $75,000. Mayor Fahey recalled the City's bond counsel indicated if the City taxes properties in the commercial district, all properties must be taxed regardless of the current use due to their potential for commercial use. Mr. Snyder said the property would have to be included in the special benefit assessment but the amount the City could require them to contribute would be based on what is determined via the special benefit study to be the benefit they receive. He recalled Mr. Safer indicated the benefit would be small, if not non - existent for current residential properties regardless of zoning. Mr. Safer explained the property owners that will benefit are those who do not have enough parking under the current regulations. Future development would be required to construct adequate parking or contribute to the in- lieu -of- parking fund and therefore they would not benefit from the garage. He said LIDS for utilities benefit all properties whether improved or vacant because the benefit can be demonstrated. Mr. Snyder recommended once the special benefit and what individual property owners will be assessed is determined, the Council reconsider its in- lieu -of- parking fee to ensure it is equivalent to the special benefit each property is deemed to receive. Councilmember White asked if the proposed garage would provide additional spaces over what is required for the Public Safety complex. Mr. Safer said the surface stalls provided by Public Safety complex are in excess of their needs. Councilmember White asked how City property would benefit from the parking garage. Mr. Safer said the ballfield the City leases has a significant parking requirement. Councilmember White asked what percentage of the 20% of the funding provided by the LID would be paid by the City. Mr. Mar said that was unknown at this time. The next step, should the Council wish to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 9 proceed, would be a property by property determination of their special benefit (their fair share of the assessment for the parking garage). He explained the benefit will be determined based on the proximity to the garage and the percentage determined based on the number of spaces they are deficient. Councilmember White said he did not understand previously that the City would also be required to contribute to the LID and there is no way to determine at this time to what degree the City would contribute. Mr. Snyder said Mr. Safer's study indicated a maximum of 26.7% to 36% of the total cost could be funded by the LID. He advised the City's special benefit will need to be netted out, a credit will need to be provided to property owners who have already paid into the in- lieu -of- parking fund and the contribution from two schools will be a part of the LID and not a separate contribution. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO EXTEND THIS DISCUSSION FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember White asked if there had been any in -depth discussion regarding revenues generated by the garage. Mr. Mar answered no. He said the suggested fees would be for special events only. Council President Pro Tern Van Hollebeke asked Mr. Pardini, Merritt- Pardini, architect for the Public Safety Complex, to comment on the heavy moisture being retained on the site and what impact that may have on a subsurface parking garage. Mr. Pardini answered the Public Safety building has a de- watering system under the slab and he anticipated the same would be necessary for a parking structure. When he was asked to generate an idea for the parking structure, he worked with a cost estimator to develop very preliminary estimates and that issue (water) was addressed in that estimate. He stressed the numbers are extremely preliminary. He hoped the stormwater system that is part of the Public Safety building Phase 2 could be used, which could result in some savings from the current budget. Council President Pro Tern Van Hollebeke referred to the $1.5 estimate for the parking garage and asked if this was "at least in the ballpark." Mr. Pardini reiterated the numbers were extremely soft. He said the proposed garage was described to a cost estimator but no provisions were included for a mechanical exhaust system which would be necessary if the structure was enclosed on four sides (they assumed it was open on two sides) or two driveways (the sketch has only one). He said the cost was estimated at $25 per square foot, which results in a total cost of $1.75 million not including any returns from the existing budget. Mr. Mar provided an historical chronology of the development of the parking garage proposal. He explained in 1997, the Advisory Committee discussed long term parking solutions to parking downtown. After considering all options and alternatives, they concluded a parking garage was the answer. They discussed a 75 -100 stall parking garage with the Community Services Committee in April 1997 estimated to cost $800,000. The Committee directed staff to discuss the approximate cost of a garage with the Public Safety complex architect. He said the architect provided an estimate based on a site diagram of approximately $750,000 and 75 cars. As the subcommittee of the Downtown Parking Committee began to develop their plans in 1998, they determined a better estimate was necessary. As a result of the meeting in December 1998 with staff, Mr. Pardini and members of the Downtown Parking Committee, the cost estimators developed an estimate of $1.5 million. He said if a true site - specific solution is desired, an engineering feasibility study will be necessary. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 10 Mr. Mar displayed Exhibit 6, the Preliminary Financial Outlook for the Proposed Underground Parking Garage, which listed the annual minimum and maximum funding source assumptions from the LID, Puget Sound Christian College, and Edmonds Community College Foundation. Exhibit 6 also included a summary of the financial outlook (worst case and best case) based on required annual costs and annual funding. It also illustrated the additional annual required funding by the City. Required annual costs included operations and maintenance ($5,000 - $10,000) and debt service ($120,000) for a total annual cost of $125,000 - $130,000. Annual funding includes funds from a LID, $43,200 based on 36% participation in the LID and $24,000 based on 20% participation in the LID. Other funding sources include the Puget Sound Christian College and Edmonds Community College Foundation. The Puget Sound Christian College has indicated their $5,000 commitment per year is inclusive of their LID participation and Edmonds Community College Foundation indicated their contribution would be their participation in the LID. The additional annual required funding by the City (including the in- lieu -of- parking fund and General Fund) is a range of $81,800 to $106,000. Mr. Mar said this would be in addition to the City's participation as a property owner in the LID. Councilmember Earling recommended the City go back to the business community to determine their interest in funding 20% of the revised estimated cost of $1.5 million. Mr. Mar agreed that was a good step to take, but questioned if it would be more valuable to do a property specific assessment before contacting individual property owners. Councilmember Earling observed the Council agreed to spend a certain amount to seek additional information and that amount has nearly been expended. Councilmember Earling said after seeing the numbers presented, the business community may want to determine whether they are interested in funding $24,000 per year (20% participation). He did not want to spend any more money until the Council had determined if they are willing to spend $81,800 to $106,000 per year and if the property owners are willing to fund 20% of $1.5 million via an LID. Further, none of the Council has considered offsets due to potential revenue generation or even had a philosophical discussion regarding whether that was desirable. Mr. Snyder said the discussion with the property owners should take into account the principles described tonight such as the property owners who have paid into the in- lieu -of- parking fund in accordance with current parking requirements will have a small or perhaps non- existent assessment while existing businesses who lack spaces will assume the majority of the assessment. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO EXTEND THE DISCUSSION FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember White said the letter from the Christian College indicated they would pay $5,000 for 20 years. Mr. Mar said his discussion with the College President, the author of the letter, clarified their participation would be a combination of their LID assessment and whatever amount remains for a total of $5,000 per year. Councilmember White recalled the City's previous assumption was their contribution would be in addition to their LID assessment. Mr. Mar agreed that was the information presented to the Council. He said the Edmonds Community College Foundation's letter states they will participate to the full extent of their assessment. Mr. Snyder said the Floral Arts Center is limited in the use of their building by the limited parking they are able to provide. Part of the assessment process should be to determine what potential additional uses they would have for the property with additional parking. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page I I COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARKING GARAGE FOR 30 DAYS AND BRING BACK TO THE COUNCIL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE INTEREST OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO PURSUE THIS AT A 20% FUNDING LEVEL WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ESTIMATED COST IS $1.5 MILLION AND ANY OTHER ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke supported Councilmember Earling's motion, as he was concerned with spending any additional money. He supported the garage if a way could be found to do it. Even with a 20% participation by the participants in the LID, the City would have a minimum expenditure of $81,800 for a 20 -year period in addition to the City's portion of the LID. He suggested the business community also identify alternate funding sources. Councilmember Earling said although the garage is a great idea, the proposed location is likely not the best location. This, however, must be balanced with the cost savings in land acquisition costs. He assumed staff would provide an estimate of the possible revenue that could be generated by the garage. He said although he was not trying to preclude the Council establishing a percentage higher than 20 %, he referred to this percentage in an effort to be consistent with the amount the business community offered to fund. Councilmember Nordquist asked the school district's obligation for the stadium property they rent to the city versus the City's obligation. Mr. Snyder said that would be determined by the study. He said the underlying property owner has an obligation as well as the long term leasee. Councilmember Earling pointed out the school district may object to that in view of the amount the City pays for rent of the stadium ($1.00 per year). Councilmember Plunkett requested annual funding from the in- lieu -of- parking fund and from the General Fund be separated. Mr. Mar explained that assuming no additional funds are spent from the in- lieu-of- parking fund_ and no additional in- lieu -of- parking spaces are sold this year, there will be an approximate ending cash balance of $75,000. He noted the new in- lieu -of- parking fee for new development is $8,000 per stall; there is a possibility three in- lieu -of- parking spaces may be applied for in 1999. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey clarified she and Mr. Mar discussed the City's required funding and purposely framed it in this manner because the General Fund is ultimately responsible for the debt service. If• there are inadequate funds in the in-lieu-of-parking fund, all the money must come from the General Fund. Further, there is no way to predict the amount available from the in- lieu -of- parking fund. Mayor Fahey said staff has information developed in the past regarding a square footage tax and a head tax. Staff will also estimate what fees could be generated by special event parking. Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED. BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS 7 AND 7A. MOTION CARRIED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 12 6. ORDINANCE NO 3247 ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY d. 3247 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.40.010(C) TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF terim THE CITY'S ABATEMENT PROCESS TO NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS ning Re: Abatement AND INDUSTRIAL USES LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND SETTING A HEARING Process DATE Council President Pro Tern Van Hollebeke requested City Attorney Scott Snyder clarify: the correspondence that was distributed to the Council regarding Agenda Item 6. Mr. Snyder explained the Council has not approved Findings in the school district rezone. His discussions with Markham Quehrn, Perkins Coie (counsel for the Edmonds School District) indicate the School District intends to withdraw but must make that decision at a school board meeting. Due to the School District break, tonight is the board's first opportunity to address the issue. Mr. Snyder clarified he requested Mr. Quehrn submit the letter in the event any citizens inquired about the Findings. In the current reconsideration process initiated by the school district and a citizen, Kevin Clarke, the issue of whether the school district site had been abated under the 15 year amortization period a long time ago has been raised. Mr. Snyder explained this is an issue the Council. raised ten years ago involving the Mauser's. Snohomish County Superior Court on appeal held that the City needed to give notice to properties so that they would be reasonably aware that their properties were subject to abatement so that they could request an abatement period. He explained the Mauser property was not provided a notice but by the time the Council held a hearing, more than 16 years had passed since they were subject to abatement. The Council unsuccessfully followed the same rationale Mr. Clarke raised with regard to the school district property. Further, the Council's minutes from 1971 indicate this ordinance, when originally enacted, was intended to apply to commercial business and industrial property. When the Code was recodified, that phrase was replaced with non - residential uses but staffs interpretation and application has been only to commercial property. Mr. Snyder said a citizen has raised the issue that the City's ordinance should be applied to non- residential uses, in this case the school district property, but also by implication the City's own property and church property. To do that would render the ordinance unconstitutional. He recommended the City adopt an interim zoning ordinance that confirms the clear intent of the Council in enacting Ordinance No. 1550 in 1971 - -limit the application of the ordinance to nonconforming commercial business and industrial uses. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3247 AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 1, 1999. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance adopted is a follows: AN INTERIM. ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.40.010(C) TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY'S ABATEMENT PROCESS TO NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL USES LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND SETTING A HEARING DATE. ora.32as 7. ORDINANCE NO. 3248 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON oratori g ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS AND C ing FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ement epingCouncil President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke said the City is considering revising the ordinances regarding mals the keeping of animals and some enforcement issues are still pending. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 13 Councilmember White explained the Planning Board forwarded their recommended ordinance which was reviewed by the Community Services and Public Safety Committees and some changes were suggested. He said since issues that are currently violations may not be violations when the ordinance is passed, it was not reasonable to enforce the ordinance until the changes are made. Therefore a moratorium on enforcement is appropriate until the revisions to the ordinance are made. He pointed out the ordinance states enforcement action should be abated only until the Council has made a determination and that should be no longer than 60 days and sooner if possible. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3248 AND ESTABLISH MAY 18, 1999 AS THE HEARING DATE. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance approved is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Information 7 A, PRESENTATION ON THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STUDY Technology Study Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler said she was presenting this item on behalf of all the directors in the City. She explained one of the observations made during the staffing study conducted in 1997 by Ewing & Associates was that the City was not fully maximizing the use of technology and they recommended a City-wide technology plan be put in place. She said such a plan could benefit the City in numerous ways including the development of integrated systems to allow information to pass freely between computer systems, eliminate duplicative systems that are currently in place, realize increased productivity and efficiency and keep staffing levels at a minimum level and position the City to take advantage of the changing technology and possibly enhance service delivery to citizens by broadening the use of the Internet and other applications. Because the City does not have a technology specialist on staff, a consultant who is familiar with current trends and has vision into future trends would be necessary to develop the plan. She said it is particularly important for the City to move forward with a technology plan now because the financial system, which is the backbone for nearly all the systems in the City, needs to be replaced. She requested the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with John Elliott of Elliott Consulting to assist the City with Phase 1 of the plan. She said Mr. Elliott was formerly the Chief Information Officer for the City of Seattle, has experience with numerous large accounting firms and has done similar studies for several other local cities. Ms. Hetzler said the directors and Mayor Fahey felt the best approach to the project would be to divide it into two phases as this would assist in containing costs. The Phase 1 plan Mr. Elliott has proposed will assist with developing a strategic approach to- technology and focus on identifying and prioritizing business requirements, reviewing existing program applications, assessing the capability and quality of the existing network components, and recommending strategic alternatives. Phase 2 would develop a detailed plan for the City's systems. She anticipated Phase 1 could be completed within 3 -6 months at a cost not to exceed $15,000. The desire to have the study done was discussed during last year's budget deliberations but no funds were allocated for it. She said in January the City received an unexpected rebate from Labor and Industries in the form of a one time reimbursement in the amount of $36,000. She recommended a portion of that rebate be dedicated to funding this study. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 14 Councilmember Earling said the Finance Committee reviewed this issue last week and it appeared to be a good business decision to inventory the City's needs and determine how to move the City forward with technology. He said Community Transit did a similar study last year which yielded great benefits. He observed $15,000 was a relatively modest.amount to accomplish this and requested Ms. Hetzler review the long term financial implications if information from the study is acted upon. Ms. Hetzler said Phase 2 would likely add another $15,000 to the total cost of the study. She said a phased -in, multi -year approach is anticipated for hardware and software and alternatives such as leasing versus buying or partnering with other local jurisdictions would be considered. Further, there is the possibility of contracting for certain services. In her initial discussions with Mr. Elliott, she informed him the City identified $200,000 in the 1999 budget in the General Fund and $100,000 in the Combined Utility Fund for the replacement of the financial system. She said those funds would not be spent in 1999 because she preferred the financial system be viewed in terms of the City's overall needs and priorities rather than fast tracking the purchase. This would provide $300,000 to start implementing the long term plan. She indicated to Mr. Elliott she could envision perhaps a total of $500,000 in available funds over the next few years ($200,000 in addition to the $300,000 that had already been identified) to start this plan. Based on Mr. Elliott's review of the budget, his analysis of the staffing and current applications and the population served, he felt that would be a reasonable amount to accomplish a great many of the goals to be achieved. She said it was possible if the project is scoped and monitored carefully, to develop a plan that fits within the City's budget constraints and provides the maximum benefit. Responding to questions, Ms. Hetzler said they tried to structure the study so that Phase 1 and 2 could be accomplished within 1999. The study could be completed to that point and if the Council wished to move forward with that particular portion of the plan, that could be done. She said Mr. Elliott has recommended if the City does not have compelling Y2K issues or -other compelling factors, that any software purchases be delayed until after 2000 when vendors may have excess capacity and idle staff which may result in a cost break. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH ELLIOTT CONSULTING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE 1 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN AND THAT THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000 FROM UNANTICIPATED GENERAL FUND REVENUES TO COVER THE COST OF THE STUDY. MOTION CARRIED. 8. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Public Public Safety Committee Safety Committee Committee Member White advised the committee discussed the purchase of replacement fire protective clothing, which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda (Item L.) They also discussed the new .animal control ordinance and provided input that will be used to develop an ordinance for review by the Planning Board. This was followed by discussion of the smoking ordinance. Councilmember White explained it is an infraction, analogous to a speeding ticket for a minor to possess tobacco products in Edmonds. This presented a problem with enforcement at the Snohomish County level due to the lack of ' a diversion system. That system has now been established and the Police Department will continue enforcing the ordinance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 1.5 Community Community Services/Development Services Committee Services/ Committee Member Van Hollebeke advised the committee discussed clarifying language in the Non- Development conforming Uses ordinance, which was reviewed as Item 6 on tonight's agenda. A progress report on the Services Committee Public Safety construction project was provided to the committee indicating the project is nearly on target. An early problem with oil tanks that was not anticipated slowed the project but the contractor is trying to make up some of that lost time. The targeted completion date is July 1999. Staff led a discussion regarding the road conditions in Shell Valley during the winter season. He explained this area is difficult to access in freezing weather and there was a medical emergency this winter that posed a major challenge. The committee directed staff to complete a predesign effort on a specific solution with associated costs and include this as a year 2000 CIP request. Staff provided a bike plan status report. The committee requested staff expedite this plan and submit it to the Planning Board and provide feedback to the Community Services/Development Services Committee. The committee discussed a request to revise the parking space requirement. No conclusion was reached and staff was asked to provide the committee an update prior to submitting the parking requirement revisions to the Planning Board. mance Finance Committee Committee I Committee Member Earling advised the Finance Committee discussed the Information Technology Study, which was acted on as Item 7A on the Council's agenda. Staff recommended all Petty Cash be maintained in one central location and the committee recommended this item be placed on the Consent Agenda. There was some discussion regarding General Fund revenue projections including why some revenues were outpacing projects while others were lagging. Ms. Hetzler indicated she would be forming a revenue forecasting team to help monitor revenue activity throughout the year. The Finance Committee's next meeting will include further discussion regarding revenue variances. 9. MAYOR'S REPORT Legislative Mayor Fahey reported the Legislative bulletin from AWC indicated the Legislature passed SB5745 Action Re: regarding the level of taxation for bingo and raffles. In the past, cities have had the right to tax up to a Gambling 10% level; 70 cities, including Edmonds, tax at that level. This new legislation lowers the rate to 5 %, Taxes Which will result in the loss of half the current revenues (a reduction from $140,000 annually to $70,000). She pointed out this is an example of the Legislature's lack of concern regarding how cities are to fund themselves. She said a lot of efforts are put forth to find new ways to raise revenues for cities and instead the Legislature cuts in half one of the cities' potential revenue streams despite the fact that individual cities as well as the AWC lobbied to retain it. E k Mayor Fahey announced she was appointed to a new Mayor's Council that has been formed by Amtrak. 's She will have the opportunity, at Amtrak's expense, to attend the initial meetings of that Council in early it May., Future meetings will be scheduled In conjunction with the Conference of Mayors meetings. She felt it would be beneficial to have input into Amtrak's activities as well as network for funding for the multimodal center. Mayor Fahey congratulated Councilmember Earling on his upcoming birthday on April 23 and on his selection as Chair of the Community Transit Board. Dedication or Mayor Fahey announced next week's meeting would begin with the dedication of the generator at the of G Wastewater Treatment Plant and acknowledgment of special work done by Treatment Plant employees. She invited the public to attend. Edmonds City Council .Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 16 Visioning Meeting Excused Absences Art Selection for Skate acility 1 10. COUNCIL REPORTS Council President Pro Tern Van Hollebeke reminded citizens the presentation regarding the visioning process will be on Wednesday, May 19 at the Edmonds Theater at 7:00 p.m. He encouraged citizens to attend to hear HyettPalma's conclusions regarding the visioning process. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER EARLING FROM THE APRIL 6 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER EARLING ABSTAINED. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED. BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM THE APRIL 13 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED. - Councilmember Plunkett advised he filled in for Councilmember Miller to judge the art selection for the Lynnwood skate facility. Twelve artists were considered and four were selected for the next round. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. ;,. � �. i SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 17 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL qw PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 650 MAIN STREET 7:00 -10:00 P.M. APRIL 20, 1999 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19-20,1999 (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 1999 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29371 THROUGH #32075 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 5, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $187,112.51. APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29372 THROUGH #32238 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 12, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $218,129.25. (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM DAN & GAIL MEYERSON ($157.47), PAUL M. KOHOUT, DBA KOHOUT INSURANCE AGENCY ($34,786.64); AND ROSMOND E. ELLIS (PENDING) (F) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED APRIL 12, 1999 FOR A TWO -YEAR CONTRACT WITH A ONE -YEAR COST FOR EMPLOYEE UNIFORMS AND LAUNDRY SERVICE AND AWARD OF BID TO AMERICAN LINEN ($11,731.72) (G) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED APRIL 12, 1999 FOR A 1999 HARLEY DAVIDSON POLICE MOTORCYCLE AND AWARD OF BID TO LYNNWOOD CYCLE BARN ($13,900.80) (H) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE REPAIR TO THE INCINERATOR AND RELATED EQUIPMENT AND AWARD TO C H MURPHY /CLARK ULLMAN ($24,975, NOT INCLUDING SALES TAX) (1) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE BALLASTS AND LAMPS FROM PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY FOR THE LIBRARY AND PLAZA ROOM LIGHTING SYSTEM ($9,949.66) (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC. FOR UPGRADING THE PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROLLERS AT THE TREATMENT PLANT (K) AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE PETTY CASH FUND FOR PARKS AND RECREATION (L) APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT FIRE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING (M) PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND DEVELOPER AGREEMENT FOR THE BOO HAN PLAZA TREE REPLACEMENT (Property Location: 22618 Hwy 99 / Applicant: Ted Litzenberger, Arch/Tech International / File No. ADB- 97 -90) 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 4. (5 Min.) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM LORI GREENLEAF /EVANS OF A REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE 180TH STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY ADJACENT TO 8615 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE, OR ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE VACATING SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 20, 1999 Page 2 of 2 5. (45 Min.) REPORT ON THE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE ` 6. (10 Min.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.40.010(C) TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY'S ABATEMENT PROCESS TO NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL USES LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND SETTING A HEARING DATE 7. (30 Min.) PRESENTATION ON THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STUDY 8. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS 9. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 10: (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS 'arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advana ,otice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting ppears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.