Loading...
11/30/1999 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES NOVEMBER 30, 1999 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:04 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 Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas A. Miller, Council President ALSO PRESENT Christie Lee, Student. Representative STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief John. Westfall, Fire Marshal Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director James Walker, City Engineer Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Stephen Koho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Mgr Frances Chapin, Cultural Program Coordinator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Sr. Council Executive Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder. Mayor Fahey advised this meeting was advertised as a special meeting as today was the fifth Tuesday of the month and special meeting notice was required for a public hearing held on other than the first or third Tuesday. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO, TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Z. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Fahey advised staff .requested the last page in the fee schedule (Consent Agenda Item J) be replaced with a revised page. Councilmember Earling requested Item J be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 1 Telephone (B) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE FROM ABA 1em NETWORKS INCORPORATED IN ORDER TO EXPAND TO A 4 -DIGIT EXTENSION 1ade SYSTEM ($6,530) 1 yz(C) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE AN - OXYGEN .ANALYZER FOR THE n gee for WWTP TREATMENT PLANT FROM FIELD INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS FOR $4,400 Reso. #965 (D) RESOLUTION NO. 965 DECLARING A SINGLE SOURCE OF SUPPLY FOR THE obile PURCHASE OF TWO ADDITIONAL MOBILE COLUMN LIFTS FROM TALON Column INDUSTRIES Lifts Mobile (E) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TWO SEFAC MOBILE COLUMN LIFTS FROM column TALON INDUSTRIES INC. ($14,878.20) Lifts Reso. #966 (F) RESOLUTION NO. 966 FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL NEEDS AND roperty Tax JUSTIFYING THE RECAPTURE OF THE MAXIMUM LAWFUL PROPERTY TAX vies LEVY FOR TI4E CITY AT A RATE OF 4.22 %. THIS INCREASE OF CITY REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES OVER THE 1999 LEVY EQUATES TO A RATE EQUAL TO 11.9% OR $748,392. A LEVY OF $.4738 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AT A RATE EQUAL TO 106% OR $71,660 IS ALSO DETERMINED. d. (G) ORDINANCE NO. 3280 MAKING CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS, INCREASING Prty T THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR 2000 BY 11.9 %, LEVYING AN EMS vies o perty T LEVY OF .473,8 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION, AND LEVYING .2248 PER ■ $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX #3281 (R) ORDINANCE NO. 3281 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF'EDMONDS CITY CODE ax on ewer CHAPTER 3.2'0 BUSINESS LICENSE AND OCCUPATION TAX TO ADD A NEW titity j SECTION 3.20.050 TO LEVY A TAX ON THE CITY'S SEWER UTILITY Ord. #3282 (1) 1 ORDINANCE NO. 3282 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE Non-resident CHAPTER 4.72 BUSINESS LICENSE, 4.72.020 BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED TO Business DELETE REQUIREMENT THAT BUSINESS BE OPERATED FROM REAL ESTATE License WITHIN THE CITY, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4.72.040, SUBPARAGRAPHS (B), 1 THROUGH 3, TO ESTABLISH A LICENSE FEE OF $25.00 FOR A TRANSIENT BUSINESS LICENSE FOR TRANSIENT BUSINESSES Item J• Proposed Resolution Amending the Fee Schedule for the City's Planning Engineering, Public Works Building and Other Fee Structures Including a Savings Clause Councilmember Earling advised he planned to vote against Item J as there was a public meeting scheduled before the Planning Board on December 8 and he preferred the process be reversed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED,, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM J WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE REVISED LAST SHEET OF EXHIBIT A. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER EARLING OPPOSED. The agenda item approved is as follows: o. #967 (J) RESOLUTION NO. 967 AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY'S PLANNING, ENGINEERING, PUBLIC WORKS, BUILDING AND OTHER FEE edule for STRUCTURES, INCLUDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE Serv. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 2 Public 3. ANNUAL REPORT FROM PUBLIC DEFENDER JAMES FELDMAN Defender Annual Report James Feldman, Public Defender, referred the Council to the written annual report he .submitted. He said the contract proposal is reasonable and he was not requesting an increase. He reported there have been no major changes in the manner in which the court functions or in the procedures for a number of years. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AS SUBMITTED BY JAMES FELDMAN. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey advised Mr. Feldman had submitted a very comprehensive report outlining his activities over the past year. She explained Mr. Feldman frequently serves as the attorney of record for individuals who are involved in the court process. She expressed her appreciation for the service he provides to these individuals. Prosecutor 4. ANNUAL REPORT FROM PROSECUTOR JEFFREY GOODWIN Annual Report Jeffrey Goodwin, Prosecutor, referred to the report he submitted, pointing out his contract proposal did not request an increase. He looked forward to continuing to serve as the City's Prosecuting Attorney during 2000. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REPORT AS SUBMITTED BY JEFFREY GOODWIN AND CONTINUING THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey advised that when Mr. Goodwin took over as Prosecuting Attorney, he took a hard line on domestic violence as well as enforcement of DUI legislation. This resulted in an increase in the court's workload but has been managed very effectively. She said Mr. Goodwin has done an. excellent job keeping the community safe with regard to these issues. Mr. Goodwin said there has been a reduction in the number of trials and the number of appeals, which has assisted in keeping costs under control. Mayor Fahey expressed her appreciation for the service he provides to the City. Public Art 5. PUBLIC HEARING — PRESENTATION OF JURY RECOMMENDED ART SELECTION FOR for Fountain THE FOUNTAIN ROUNDABOUT PROJECT LOCATED AT 5m AVENUE AND MAIN STREET. Roundabout AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH ARTIST Mayor Fahey explained that in the interest of fairness and the fact that there are many people who feel strongly about both sides of the issue, two sign -up sheets were provided, in favor and in opposition to the jury recommended art selection. She explained names during the public comment portion of the hearing would be called alternately from the sign -in sheets to ' ensure the opinions of both sides are fairly presented. She explained this item was scheduled for 90 minutes and would begin with comments from Cultural Resources Coordinator Frances Chapin, followed by a presentation by the artist and the meeting will then be opened for public comment. Cultural Resources Coordinator Frances Chapin presented the Art Commission's recommendation that the art proposal by Benson Shaw for the Fifth and Main Roundabout be accepted and that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the contract as shown in Exhibit one of the Council's agenda. She explained the funding for this public art project is a gift of $75,000 from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 3 1 The funds can only be used for public art on this site, not for any other site or project. In Exhibit 3, the donation letter, the Arts Festival Foundation expressed a strong belief in the public process and donated these funds with the provision that the.selection of the piece take place via the established City public art process. Ms. Chapin explained the public art process for this site was initiated upon determining the previous sculpture was damaged beyond repair. The acquisition of any new public art piece for the City, including replacement of public art, follows a process established by City ordinance. The process for this site followed nine steps. First, on February 2, 1999, a public hearing at City Council was held to gather comprehensive public input on the site. This first hearing was not required by ordinance but the Arts Commission wanted the public to have an additional opportunity to comment prior to developing a call for artists. Second, on March 23, 1999, the call for artists, developed to include public comment and input from City departments, was approved by City Council. The prospectus reflected the interests of the community as well as the requirements imposed by the City. Third, the call for artists (prospectus) was advertised and sent out through the. Northwest region with a June 11, 1999 deadline. Over 600 calls for artists were sent out and 24 artists submitted applications. She explained the application required a resume, slides /pictures of previous work, and a letter outlining the artist's interest in the project. Step four, City ordinances require that an Art Selection Jury be established to review the applications. By ordinance, the jury must include a minimum of one Arts Commissioner, a City Councilmember, and a member of the public. The Arts Commission can add additional members, and in this instance the jury for this project included a representative of the downtown site selected by the Chamber of Commerce, the Mayor representing the City as a whole, a representative of the Funding Foundation, and an artist consultant. She explained the Arts Commission uses an arts consultant for every major public art jury. The consultant in this instance was an expert on public art as well as an Edmonds native. Prior to meeting, each juror reviewed the! public comment compiled since July 1998 including minutes from the February 2, 1999 public hearing. Jurors also reviewed the requirements for the site that had been established by the City. Fifth, on June 21, 1999, the Arts Selection Jury met to review the 24 applications submitted by artists and to select three finalists. The three finalists were asked to review the record of public comment prior to developing a specific design for the fountain roundabout site. The sixth step, on September 30; 1999, the finalists presented their proposals at a well publicized public hearing before the Art Selection jury. This public hearing was attended by approximately 150 people and approximately 110 people signed in. The minutes from this meeting are included in the Council packet as Exhibit 4. Following the public hearing, the jury convened and unanimously selected the proposal presented by Benson Shaw. On October 4, 1999, the Arts Commission approved the jury recommendation. Tonight's hearing is the third public hearing in the public art selection process for this site. The purpose of this final hearing is to present the recommended proposal to City Council and request Council authorize the Mayor to sign the artist contract. Ms. Chapin introduced Benson Shaw, a Seattle artist who has worked with public art for over 20 years. Mr. Shaw explained he planned to present his, proposal by first, describing the elements and then describing the meanings /metaphors of the proposal. Mr. Shaw displayed a site plan, explaining his artwork involves the entire intersection, which is typical of his work, not to build an object but to build an environment. In this instance, he attempted to include Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 4 something in all components of the intersection, both for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. He explained at each pedestrian corner, a bronze inlay in a cedar needle pattern will, be surrounded by dots of dichroic glass that reflect/refract colors. He described the reconfiguration of the pavement in the intersection including the replacement of the asphalt with concrete in a spoke -like, circular, radial pattern. In the center of the intersection where the fountain and gazebo are currently, he proposed a bronze gazebo structure placed on a balustrade (urn- shaped posts to support a wide rail). Within the fountain there is a water element that includes the existing ring and includes a more powerful, stronger waterspout. Another element near the Kinder Britches corner, is several sections of the balustrade on the sidewalk as a bench element to replace the existing steel and wood bench in that location. Mr. Shaw explained that in developing his design, he reviewed the citizen input, the requirements of the site established by the Engineering Department and the Parks and Recreation Department, and material from Edmonds in Bloom, and did extensive research into the history of the City which resulted in inclusion of several historic items. Mr. Shaw described the growth of cedars in this region due to the fog zone. He displayed a magnified cedar needle pattern proposed to be inlayed in bronze in the sidewalk, two on each corner. The cedar pattern will be surrounded by 100 dichroic glass dots to represent the fog droplets that allowed the cedars to grow. He explained the wealth of the cedars allowed George Brackett to establish the City in the midst of the industrial age that included railroads, sawmills, automobiles, ferry service.. These items are represented by. the active pavement design. Comments from citizen input indicated their feeling that downtown Edmonds had an old world character that they wanted the artwork to reinforce and that the gazebo structure was a favored item. He said the balustrade that the proposed gazebo sits on is a typical old world masonry construction element. The gazebo is somewhat reminiscent of the existing white gazebo and also references the historic architecture of Edmonds including the archway on the Carnegie Library, the cupola on the historic Hiner home, and hip roofs used on wood construction in the City. He said the gazebo design captures many of the historic references as well as launches the design into the future. The curved elements in the proposed gazebo are coming back into vogue in modern architecture and the spheres on the gazebo are an item added by humans and included in the architectural world. The water element with its strong central spout may represent a person, a resident of the gazebo, a reflection of the City. He viewed the spout as reflective of past, present and future citizens in the City. Mr. Shaw said one of the requirements. from Engineering was avoiding the need for the public to enter the street to examine the artwork. He said due to the interesting balustrade on the artwork, he recreated it at the sidewalk level so it can be examined in detail. He summarized the design is flexible and said if elements needed to be returned to the jury, he could likely accommodate them. He envisioned a bronze patina finish on the gazebo. He circulated a sample of a green patina, noting there are many different colors available. He commented the space between the balusters is similar to the shape of a cedar tree canopy. Council President Pro Tern Van Hollebeke observed there has been more interest in this issue than any other during the past four years. He asked Ms. Chapin to clarify for the audience whether the existing gazebo was ever considered as a permanent object for this location. Ms. Chapin explained the existing gazebo, a temporary structure according to its designer, was not considered as part of this process. This is a public art site, therefore, the selection of public art must go through the process established by City ordinance. She pointed out the City did a good job of advertising when the existing gazebo was installed that it was simply a movie prop that was there on a temporary basis until the public art process could be conducted. However, several of the artists' included specific ideas with their applications although this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 5 was not required. One of proposals submitted' with an artist's application was an exact replica of the existing gazebo. Council President Pro .Tem Van Hollebeke asked Ms. Chapin to describe the criteria used by the Art Selection Jury to select the three finalists. Ms. Chapin, explained the applications are compiled in notebooks that are distributed to each juror for review prior to the first meeting. In this instance, the jurors were also asked to review a notebook on public comment and the requirements of the City as stated in the prospectus. The jury reviewed slides sent in by the artists and reviewed the artists' resumes and letters of intent. Following this review, each juror ranks the artists individually based on whether they have had previous experience working with projects of similar scope, previous work including problems they have encountered as well as the artistic quality of previous work, the artist's interest in the project primarily as indicated by the letter of intent, and the way the artist approached the unique requirements of this site. Ms. Chapin explained the proposal for replicating the existing gazebo was not eliminated in the first round of eliminations. There were some concerns with the ability to work with a wide variety of technical issues as this is a very complicated site. The site involves traffic engineering issues and safety issues as well as plumbing and electrical issues. One of the criteria in considering artists was their ability to deal with those complex factors based on their previous work. If an artist did not demonstrate an ability to work with a variety of materials and in complex projects involving these factors, they did not rank as high in the process. Council President, Pro Tem. Van Hollebeke asked when the process began. Ms. Chapin explained the process began with the assessment of the original sculpture and. its damage. Once the panel, established according to public art policy, decommissioned the original sculpture in late September 1998, the process for selecting a new piece of public art, according to the process defined by City ordinance to replace the damaged artwork, began. She said the City has retained all public comment on this issue since July 1998. The first official public step in this process was February 2, 1999, the public hearing before the City Council to gather comment on the site prior to sending out a call for artists. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke thanked the audience members who were in attendance. He said there were approximately 175 people in the Library Plaza Room and approximately 25 in an overflow area. Attempts to set up a- room in the Frances Anderson Center did not succeed, therefore, a canopy was erected outside so additional audience members could hear the proceedings. He said staff met numerous times to discuss how to hold the hearing and he has discussed the proceeding with both sides. He said there was a sign -up sheet provided for audience members to indicate their position on the jury recommended art selection as well as separate in- favor -of and in- opposition -to speaker sign -up sheets. 'In the interest of time and fairness, he suggested those representing the most succinct viewpoint speak early in the process so that a concise viewpoint can be provided early in the process. He urged audience members not to repeat information provided by previous speakers. Mayor Fahey advised the three minute time limit would be strictly adhered to due to the number of people signed up to speak. She stressed audience members must speak to the issue only — whether they are in favor of or opposed to the jury recommended art selection for this location. Richard Baxter, 22124 98 " Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke in'favor of the jury selection process and in favor of the art jury's recommendation. He said one of the things that made Edmonds a wonderful place to live was its support of the arts and if the City deviates from that process, the City will lose its Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 6 reputation as an arts community. He said the gazebo is not art. Much of the support for retaining the . gazebo or . a copy of it was based on misconceptions about the public art process, ignorance of the fountain and its role in the adoption of the process for selection of public art, and misinformation about a the role of the Arts Commission, the funding, and available options. He said many people who originally signed the petition to save the gazebo who later learned facts surrounding the process, regretted signing the petition and supported the jury selected art. He pointed out the public art selection process existed in a large part due to the unpopularity of the original donation, to allow public input, and selection of art with durable value. The jury that selected the finalists is comprised of Edmonds citizens and only one Arts Commissioner although there is a rumoribelief that the Arts Commission is foisting the proposed artwork on an unsuspecting public without input. He explained the artwork for the site was privately funded although there was an impression that public funds were being used. The funds are a "use it for this purpose or lost it" proposal. The proposed artwork has been on display at Frances Anderson Center as well as at public hearings. He said art was not about what is popular at the moment and pointed out a popularity contest would never have allowed the Eiffel Tower to be built. He pointed out this was a gift to the City. Lawrence Bleitz, 1124 7te Avenue S, Edmonds, said the procedure of allowing each side to speak alternately would give the impression that the citizens are evenly split although nothing could be further from the truth. He said for every resident in favor of the Art Commission recommended structure, there are 20 residents who wish to preserve the gazebo. He said the citizens of Edmonds want the Council to preserve the gazebo or a replica at its present location. In April, he collected. 210 petitions and personally presented them to the Mayor. At a later Council meeting he explained a tally he kept of those opposed to preserving the gazebo indicated only 10 people out of 210 opposed the gazebo, 95% preferred to keep the gazebo. As Mayor Fahey later informed she would not be influenced by the petitions, he recently conducted a public opinion poll for 6%2 hours around the town center, at the post office, and Harbor Square. To keep the poll free from his opinion, people were invited to sign on the left side of the page in favor of the gazebo and on the right side for the structure recommended by the Arts Commission. 105 people participated in the poll, none from the Save the Gazebo Committee. 102 signed indicating their desire to save the gazebo and three indicated their desire to replace the gazebo. The results indicate 94% favor the gazebo and 3% opposed it, consistent with the results six months previous. He said over 2,000 signatures have now been obtained, pointing out no other public issue has had such unanimous public agreement: He recommended the Council carry out the will of the people and "preserve our gazebo." Darlene McLellan, 22615 92 °d Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the public art process because the 5t' and Main roundabout had been established as a public art site since 1973 and a process for selection of public art had been established. By its nature, public art is based on compromise, it does not matter what type of art the selection panel may prefer. Each member of the panel is obligated to take the criteria established for the public art site, fit it to the requirement of the public art process, listen to those who voice interest, and find the most compatible fit. Individual preferences of the Arts Commissioners are irrelevant to the selection as they are charged only with overseeing this process. Individual preferences of artists who work in the realm of public art projects are irrelevant to the selection. Their. artistry, combined with the project requirements and their ability to function in the setting of engineering and City crews, determine the selection. Public voice adds another dimension to the process but it still follows the process. Everyone had a voice and everyone has been heard; to disallow a structure established as temporary does not mean that voices were not heard. Public art is not what each person selects for his/her home or what a business person chooses to display. Public art exists to ensure there will be forms of artwork in public spaces which go beyond the popular interest of individuals, to ensure Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November, 30, 1999 .Page 7 future generations have a diverse range of art to experience, ensure that more than one view is represented, and over a period of time to provide. an opportunity for everyone to have an understanding and appreciation for one's own preferences. The first public hearing provided the mandate for this .public art process and public comment from . that hearing and during the following months was incorporated. She urged the Council to accept the recommendation. Don Olsen, 549 Pine Street, Edmonds, said the citizens to save the gazebo analyzed the events that lead to the current controversy. They understand the gazebo was a movie prop selected by a movie company who thought it fit the town. They also understand that the majority of Edmonds citizens loved the gazebo when it was first erected and still love it as is evidenced by the large crowd present tonight, the 2,047 signatures on the petitions, 105 business owners who liked the gazebo enough to provide petitions for their customers, and the random survey of citizens taken by Mr. Bleitz yesterday where 97% indicated their desire to retain the gazebo. He said the citizens to save the gazebo do not understand the comment that the signatures mean nothing since the signers did not understand all the facts. Although that may be true, he said the argument is irrelevant as the only thing the signers wanted to convey is that they wanted to keep the gazebo. He said they understand it was necessary to implement the process when an art selection is being made for an art site. However, the roundabout already had a very popular art piece in place that cost the City nothing. The group did not understand why a hearing was not held at the outset to determine whether to retain the gazebo and why the existing gazebo was never considered in the selection process. He said there was a large contingent present tonight of thoughtful, concerned citizens who wish to show their support for the gazebo. He urged the Council to reaffirm their faith in local government and find a way to save our gazebo or produce its replica. Tracie Bartholomew, 22608 92nd Ave W, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the art process. She, indicated she has read and heard that the white gazebo has become a symbol of Edmonds and a unique landmark. She questioned how something that has been in place for less than two years could be seen as a symbol or landmark of the town and how a common gazebo could bring a unique identity to the community. She agreed the gazebo was quaint and in spring and summer it was pretty with flowers in bloom, but did not feel it represented Edmonds. She pointed out a legal, public process was followed to find an attractive representation of Edmonds. Cedar Dreams is based on the City's history and would be a proud symbol of Edmonds, something that reminded citizens of the beginnings of the town and why it exists. She believed in supporting arts in Edmonds and the .white gazebo was not art, as it was not something children could study and learn from, and was not something that told visitors about the City. True art represents more than one age, class or social group. The public art process worked in this instance, all sides were heard otherwise a gazebo -like structure would not have been considered. Hi Running, 620 Daley Street, Edmonds, spoke in favor of retaining the existing gazebo. He said the citizens of Edmonds, as witnessed by the audience present tonight, the 2,000 signatures on petitions endorsed by 105 merchants, believe Edmonds is their town and that the gazebo and inherent design was given to them and belongs to them. He said the petitions do not represent only names on paper, they are voices of 2,000 citizens of Edmonds declaring their desire to keep the gazebo. He urged the Council to listen to those voices. He observed the controversy appeared to be over creating a historic atmosphere at the roundabout. He said they believe the existing gazebo speaks for itself and says I am history, I am historic. They believe the gazebo complements the already historic atmosphere created by the gas lights, Mill Town, and picket fences of private homes surrounding downtown Edmonds. He said The Edmonds Paper reported Mr. Benson's design was bronze and stainless steel. He questioned whether bronze and stainless steel created an atmosphere of historic proportions, noting stainless steel was not historic as it was not invented until 1920. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 8 Jessica Holliday, 434 Third Avenue #C202, Edmonds, spoke in favor of Cedar Dreams which she said was an overall representation of Edmonds yesterday, today, and the future. It was portrayed in a light and airy way that encompassed the entire roundabout. The artist put a great deal of thought into the design which symbolizes the respect for Edmonds' history and emphasizes the City's future as a progressive art community. The proposed gazebo was a more open concept than the present structure and would afford better visibility for drivers and pedestrians. She felt Edmonds would be making a mistake by not accepting this beautiful work of art for the roundabout. Dennis Weaver, 1024 5th Avenue S, Edmonds, urged the Council to save the gazebo. He said citizens were not speaking at the 23`d hour, they have been here all along, since the summer of 1998. It. was just that their opinions have been skipped, avoided and ignored. He said there was never an open, comprehensive public debate regarding whether to retain the gazebo, although that should have been the first step. The City made a decision to replace the gazebo, setting in motion the process to pursue its replacement. He said they would not go away until the question was allowed to be fairly debated and answered. From the original pronouncement on February 2, 1999 to tonight's public hearing, all' meetings were biased toward a set agenda and prejudiced toward a set agenda and prejudicial to exclude thoughtful consideration and discussion of retaining the gazebo. He recalled at the February 2, 1999 public hearing, Mayor Fahey said that under no circumstances would the existing gazebo structure remain. The City's Cultural Resources Coordinator Frances Chapin described the February 2 meeting as an information hearing; he said an information hearing is one where the Council speaks and citizens listen. He pointed out two petitions with 200 signatures were submitted before February and another presented in May. He said the visioning meeting that drew more than 250 Edmonds citizens, indicated there was near unanimity when citizens were asked if they wanted to retain the gazebo. He recalled their surprise when reading in the April 28 newspaper that the gazebo was to be removed and presentation of . the replacement for the gazebo at the September 30 meeting. He said the Council did not recognize, appreciate or comprehend the emotional attachment to the gazebo but they have talked with over 1,000 citizens and visitors who enjoy the town and the gazebo. He said if the process had been as thorough and all - inclusive as it was claimed to be, these citizens would not be here as all issues would have been addressed and answered. However, because the two public hearings were closed- ended, replacement - driven, find real art motivated, the public was skipped, avoided and ignored. He urged the Council to find a way to save our gazebo or produce its replica. Bill Stark, 1502 7th Place S, Edmonds, supported the jury recommended art selection for the fountain, roundabout and authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with Benson Shaw. He said although he too supported the process, he supported the careful design Benson Shaw developed. He commended Mr. Shaw for the care, research and practical considerations as well as for the relevance and beauty of the proposed artwork. After attending the hearing where the three artists presented their ideas, he wished there were three roundabouts and three times the budget as all presentations were excellent. He stressed this would replace an attractive, temporary wooden gazebo with a permanent structure built of materials that would withstand time and become better as the patina develops. He said once Cedar Dreams was built, installed and lived with and the patina develops, the wood gazebo versus this issue will be irrelevant. Nancy Olsen, 549 Pine Street, Edmonds, supported retaining the current gazebo or a reinforced replica. She urged the Council to consider several what ifs including what if this many citizens in support of the gazebo had attended the initial hearing in February, would the Council have considered their desires? If so, why not now? If not, what's the point of a public hearing? What if the gazebo had been sturdier, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 9 would the City have accepted it as an appropriate art piece to grace the roundabout? What if the Council in this one exceptional incidence truly listened and respected the majority of constituents? What if the Art Festival Foundation had not offered the $75,000 for the new art piece? Would the Council have voted to retain the gazebo or a reinforced replica which could have cost very little? What if the gazebo was really as flimsy and unsafe as citizens have been led to believe? If this were true, shouldn't it have been moved immediately? One of the points of public hearing is to learn what the people think. Are citizens really being heard and have any influence on the decision - making? What if a majority of citizens really know when their views are not being considered? Don't they have a right to be angry? What if citizens of Edmonds are all interested and concerned about. how the Council votes? She hoped the Council would find .a way to retain the current gazebo or produce its replica. Ramona Faires, 23028 102 "d Place W, Edmonds, observed others have spoken in defense of the long established, successful public process that has been .used to select other pieces of public art for Edmonds as well as the purpose of public art. She said the essence of Edmonds lies in its community- based, volunteer- driven, citizen -lead support of public art. For a City of this size, the arts are amazingly alive and well, such as the symphony, ballet, sculptures, writers workshops, theater, etc. She said support of public art and-art activities are not supported by private benefactors, it is 35,000 citizens who support, raise money, lead, and carry on these activities. The proposed artwork represents not just a metaphor of the City's past and future, it was also, for her, a symbol of that community-based support for the arts. She said it was fitting that the money for' this artwork was not gifted by a wealthy individual but had been raised by the hard work of Edmonds citizens. Betty Running, 620 Daley, Edmonds, said a high percentage of Edmonds citizenry were upset with the proposed replacement of the gazebo at 5' and Main. Due to this concern, the committee Save Our Gazebo was formed of which she is a member. She said they realized they needed to be well informed and by being prepared, they could inform citizens as accurately as possible. They appreciated that the Arts Commission, Council, or Mayor did not have the time to move into the community to discuss this issue. She said in one day, she talked with over 100 people in the downtown area, and only one was not in favor of the gazebo. At the time she spoke with these people, they had several months to get used to the gazebo and they began to realize it represented the character of Edmonds. She said the committee did not go to all the hard work, time and effort just to protest removing the gazebo. They wanted to listen to the people of Edmonds and determine what they want. She said the information they are presenting tonight represents the heartbeat of Edmonds and she hoped the Council would consider it before making a decision regarding the gazebo. She urged the Council to save the gazebo or reproduce its replica. Win Bainbridge, 628 Bell Street, Edmonds, endorsed Cedar Dreams. She said the City was fortunate to have a group of volunteers to assist the public art process function. She said if the process is not supported, the City would not be able to acquire the good, artistic work that has been provided in the past. Bob Rossi, 1113 5"' Avenue S, Edmonds, spoke in favor of saving the gazebo. He said their group was speaking as friends, neighbors and acquaintances with one goal in mind, to do what is best for Edmonds. He said they were here to request a wrong in the art selection process be corrected pertaining to the roundabout at 5' and Main. They realize it is a public art site and by ordinance, selection of public art goes through a process. However, they feel that process was biased and prejudiced against the gazebo from the beginning, as there was never a public hearing that considered keeping the gazebo or a reinforced replica. He said they understand and appreciate that the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 10 has offered $75,000 to be spent on whatever art piece is selected for the site, even if the final selection is the gazebo. As the art selection process is still underway, they requested the Council, as the citizens' representatives, vote to either retain the gazebo or defer voting until after January 1 when the' new Council takes office. He urged the Council to find a way to save our gazebo or produce its replica. Ann Saling, 18133 86 "' Place W, Edmonds, said she served on the Art Commission in 1986 and was the chairman of the fountain committee whose mission was to replace the fountain which they did not consider very artistic. She appreciated the soaring elegance of the proposed artwork, remarking it look much like a gazebo. She suggested moving the existing gazebo to a City park and display the City's sophistication and love of fine art in the roundabout. She said the proposed artwork would represent Edmonds more than the quaint gazebo. Sue Steiner, 9423 215 'h St SW, Edmonds, serves as co -chair of Save Our Gazebo, and she said she has an art.degree from the University of Washington, has worked for interior design offices in Seattle and New York, traveled for five months in Europe through 16 counties, visited dozens of museums, and has over 30 years gardening experience. She said there is a potential problem with Cedar Dreams due to the use of the concrete cone element as a balustrade as well as a corner bench, it is possible people may be tempted to sit on the balustrade. Regarding concerns with the size of the existing gazebo, she explained the gazebo measures 6'10" x 6'10" post to post and Cedar Dreams is 6' x 6', only 5 inches difference on each side, a minor difference. She said the established process for selection of public art did not foresee the unexpected gift of the gazebo to the City that hundreds of people love. These people let their feelings be known prior to the February 2, 1999 Council meeting, however, the February 2, 1999 Council meeting minutes state, "the public hearing was also to ensure the process was not skewed by comments -from those who liked the gazebo" and "input should be sought regarding what the community wanted." Ms. Steiner suggested the roundabout site be redesignated to a more general term such as "centerpiece" so that the gazebo could be considered as the centerpiece. . - James Chalupnik, 540 Dayton, Edmonds, endorsed the process that had been followed in the selection of Cedar Dreams as the replacement for the fountain. He admired the City for taking the proper steps to investigate the possibility of replacing the fountain that was destroyed via an automobile accident. He said the artist had done a beautiful job of considering many issues to create artwork that would be a wonderful addition to the City. He endorsed the selection by due process. Eva Lano, 8017 212 'h Street SW, Edmonds, said ovef a year ago by mail, telephone, petitions, and personal testimony, the community spoke and said leave the white gazebo in place. At the February 2, 1999 meeting, Mayor Fahey stated that under no circumstances would the existing gazebo structure remain. Councilmember White added that he did not want anything cute at the site nor did he want a gazebo. Ms. Lano reiterated the public spoke but no one listened. , She said in 1999, the City retained the services of a consultant firm, HyattPalma at a cost of $50,000, to produce an economic enhancement strategy for the City.. At the first vision meeting on March 24, 1999, when asked, attendees voiced overwhelming support for the existing gazebo. At the second visioning meeting in July, HyattPalma presented their report; a key factor in the report was to safeguard Edmonds' appeal as a quaint, historic, charming, picture- perfect downtown. She said the gazebo perfectly supports that key factor, and questioned what could be more picture- perfect that the gazebo when hung with flowers in summer, evergreens in winter, Christmas. lights, and flags on the 4' of July. She said residents of Edmonds hope the Mayor and Council will carry through with HyattPalma's recommendations and the $50,000 will prove to be a wise investment. The current theme in conversation with residents and visitors is their genuine desire to retain Edmonds. as a safe, beautiful and peaceful hometown. She said the gazebo fits Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 11 with the gas lamps and historic buildings" and pointed out many people indicate they moved to Edmonds for the ambiance of the downtown area. She prged the Council to find a way to save the current gazebo or its replica. Jeri Hamilton, 808 Driftwood Lane, Edmonds, wholeheartedly supported the arts process. for Benson Shaw's design for Cedar Dreams. She said the historic references would be a meaningful legacy for the future of Edmonds and all citizens. Judy Anne Kopp - Wyrick, 7009 210 " Street SW, Lynnwood (the boundary of Edmonds is on her street), said her friends, family and neighbors choose to associate themselves with Edmonds due to the quaintness of the town. She followed the gazebo process via the newspaper, not knowing she had the ability to do anything about it. After being approached by Save the Gazebo representatives in local businesses, she was asking the Council to save the gazebo. As a photographer, one of her featured exhibits is a photo of the gazebo during the spring blooming season. She said in her travels around Europe and the United States, her recollections are the town squares that provide a historical representation. A wooden structure, set in a mill and lumber town 'that Edmonds was founded upon, represents the City well. Sue Rumsey- Wasti, 7419 230`h SW, Edmonds, said she moved to Edmonds 15 years ago because she fell in love with the City and it has gotten better .since then via the addition of art features throughout the community. As Treasurer of the Arts Festival Foundation, she explained the foundation is a private,_ non- profit organization, whose mission is to promote the creative arts in Edmonds and provide an art- related, educational opportunity for all ages. They are very cautious in the projects they select to fund due to . their strong obligation to the hardworking volunteers of the community who have put on the Edmonds Arts Festival for over 40 years and have made this funding possible. Therefore, their decision to fund this art project was made after much study and consideration. She clarified misconceptions regarding the fund, 1) the funding is based on replacement of artwork for this public art site as the artwork is no longer standing and must be replaced with artwork, 2) the funding is site. specific, if not used for this site, the funding will be withdrawn, and 3) the funding is based on the foundation's confidence in the public art process; if the public art process is not used or superceded, the funding will be withdrawn. She explained the City's public art process is based on the State Arts Commission and is one of the best processes available, providing far more input from the community than many others allow. The amount of the funding was based on the cost of other projects in the State and the desire to ensure qualified artists would make presentations worthy of consideration. She pointed out artists who have worked with public art know how to address constraints of the site, understand the requirements of working with "City staff and engineering to produce an enduring piece of art. Due to the foundation's trust in the public art process which has proven an effective means for gathering information and making appropriate selection, the Arts Festival Foundation provided funding without provisions beyond site and process. The foundation continues to applaud that process, encourage the Council to uphold the process, and support the proposed artwork. Susan Rogers, 1024 5th Avenue S, Edmonds, a member of the citizens commission Save Our Gazebo, questioned why people were threatened by the fact that if the process was not followed, the money would disappear. She said perception is reality and many citizens have the perception that these are public funds rather than private funds and was uncertain how the City would ever make that distinction clear. When the City was faced with laying off police officers, firefighters, and other City staff, it may strike citizens odd that a new monument to the arts is being constructed. She urged the Council to save the gazebo, noting some people do think it is art. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO ' TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS MATTER FOR ONE ADDITIONAL HOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Barb Koenig, 300 Caspers, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the public art process. As a longtime resident of Edmonds, she encourages friends and family to view artwork on the waterfront that are a result of this public art process. As a volunteer, she has worked on the Edmonds Arts Festival for years with the idea that the efforts result in the purchase of art for the community. The Festival has made a name for itself in the State, giving Edmonds the reputation of being a supportive art community. As a businesswoman in downtown Edmonds, the turnaround is frequently, used as a point of reference for directions and thus is the focal point for downtown Edmonds. She said the structure at the intersection needs to be a reflection of the arts community Edmonds has become and hopefully can continue to build upon. Although not a part of the public art selection process, she respected the process and those who volunteer their time to make the selection. She said artists were given an.opportunity to apply, the City had input . into safety issues, and the community's interest in a gazebo -like structure was listened to as evidenced by the proposed gazebo 'structure. She urged the Council to support the public art selection process. Bill Renestorf, 821 Laurel Way, Edmonds, offered the citizens to Save the Gazebo's responses to the four reasons several officials have given for replacing the gazebo. First, the tight squeeze for fire trucks and other large vehicles through the intersection. The Fire Department reported the fountain structure itself represents an obstacle but as long as its there, they will continue to work around it as they have for the past 25 years. Second, in response to the point that the gazebo is just a movie prop, although the current gazebo was not built with longevity in mind, it has garnered a great deal of citizen sentimental' attachment that should not be discounted. Further, this particular movie prop was installed because the movie makers knew it captured the very essence and character of the town. Third, in response to the statement that flying wood caused by vehicle impact could injure others in the area, flying metal could also cause injury. If the gazebo is judged unsafe, the gazebo could be reinforced or replicated using suitable materials. Fourth, in response to the statement that flower box maintenance puts City employees at risk from vehicle traffic, he suggested maintenance crews review their safety procedures and compare them with similar practices when servicing other downtown flower baskets and planted street corners or a water drip system installed or drought- resistant plants could be used. Flower baskets could be temporarily removed to perform longer maintenance tasks. He proposed the Council find a way to save the gazebo or produce its replica. Leigh -Ann Hafford, 18425 High Street, Edmonds, expressed her support for the current art process and the selection of the jury of Cedar Dreams. She 'encouraged the Council to accept the recommendation and not be swayed by people trying to circumvent the process that has proved successful. She was aware the gazebo currently in place had a nostalgic affect on many people; however, she believed a new selection, given a chance, would instill a sense of pride, be a true landmark that all can be proud of, and create a focal point in the downtown core. She pointed out a replica of the current gazebo was considered and eliminated from the process and therefore had its opportunity to be considered as a piece of public art.. Richard Brinton, 541 Pine Street, Edmonds, asked that the gazebo remain in the roundabout. He said the decision by each Councilmember regarding whether to keep the gazebo or approve a replacement should not depend on how: each feels individually because many people have different feelings about art. He said Councilmembers represent the citizens of Edmonds and are mandated by the democratic process to vote the desires of the constituents. He pointed out a significant majority of the citizenry are angry Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 13 and strongly believe the Council has not listened to them, at least in this instance. Elected 'and appointed . officials are frequently influenced by small, special interest groups and they believe that was the case with the selection process to determine the art piece. for• the roundabout. He observed this was an opportunity for the Council to restore the citizens' faith in the democratic process and to prove that the Council listens and cares about how citizens feel. He said the petitions should have some influence on the Council's decision. By showing up tonight, citizens have done their part and he urged the Council to do their part by voting to save the gazebo. Thomas Hufford, 18425 High Street, Edmonds, spoke in favor of Cedar Dreams. He urged the Council to consider that this represents a work of art for posterity and when citizens are no longer here, it will remain. He said it was time for the Council to take advantage. of this gift. He reiterated the need to consider posterity and do something bigger than ourselves. Elaine Hamner-Yard,-9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, recalled the Council. wanted to bring business to the City and the Mayor developed a commission to examine problems of attracting and retaining businesses in the central section. She said it was rumored Mayor - elect, Gary Haakenson, wanted the Saturday Market moved to the center of Edmonds. If a focal point is desired, a small, white charming gazebo with a floor that could be used to exhibit artwork, flowers, or musicians would meet this need. She said the focal point must demonstrate the artistry of Edmonds, all the artwork including painting, carving, music, flower, etc. Marjie Stiffler, 716 Alder Street, Edmonds, supported the public art selection process and enthusiastically supported Cedar Dreams as it represents many things about the City's past, present and future. She urged the Council to take advantage of this opportunity for the City. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said in the past the Council has made changes in the zoning downtown, causing concern with the look of the City. He questioned whether some audience members were present due to the increase in the roof height due to modulated roof design or allowing 3- story condominiums. in the business zone, and said people concerned with the gazebo would also likely be interested in those facts. Mr. Hertrich said the City is changing and the reason the proposed artwork is popular with one side is because it represents that change. The people who like the existing gazebo are relating to small town, hometown - that's what people see in the simple design of the existing gazebo, and that was what he saw. Unfortunately there is new design and unfortunately with changes in code, the entire downtown building design will change. He said the concerns exhibited with the gazebo are an example of how people feel about the City and recommended the Council recognize they have gone too far in allowing the changes in the code. Josephine Fye, 8120 180h Street SW, Edmonds, said she was speaking as an Edmonds resident and did not represent any of the organizations she is affiliated with. She embraced Cedar Dreams and requested the Council maintain the integrity of a public process that has been refined since its inception and has evolved into a role model for other cities in the State. She said more than 20 years ago in 1974, the Council resolved to promote Edmonds as an arts friendly community and created the first art site in the center of town, the roundabout. There was no defined process in place, the original design cost far more than anticipated and the end result was a piece that did not reflect the character of the community (the one recently demolished). A year later, the Arts Commission was formed to provide a process that would include selection criteria, engineering standards, maintenance requirements, public safety, and a representation of the City's environment and historical value. The art installed under this process will be enjoyed-by citizens' children and grandchildren. She explained her exit from the grocery store recently Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 14 was blocked,by two individuals asking for her endorsement on petitions. At no time did they convey that any public input had been sought, that the artist's rendering was available to viewing or that the funding was a gift to the community. Her impression was that the Council was spending taxpayer's dollars unnecessarily. She pointed,out the Council is accountable for adherence to ordinances that protect public funds. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, recommended the public view the videotape .of the February 2, 1999 Council meeting. He recalled Mayor Fahey was upset with the low turnout (eight people) at the February 2 meeting. He pointed out many more people are here tonight and suggested the process begin again. He recalled the application deadline displayed at the February 2 meeting was February 16 and did not recall an extension to June 11. He said the 24 applications did not include an indication of when they were received., Christine Weed, 715 13t" Way SW, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the Edmonds Art Commission public art selection and encouraged the Council's endorsement of the project. She said the process was followed carefully, consistently and with genuine opportunity for public input. The jury heard the community and their selection reflects the many public comments and sentiments in favor of the gazebo. She said the jury did an excellent job selecting an artist whose professional credentials and artistic vision would be a credit to Edmonds in this and future generations. She said governance and public policy are the real issues facing the Council. In representational government with appointed and elected officials, citizens delegate their authority and responsibility to make decisions in the best interest of the entire community, all 38,000 in this instance. The City is governed by public policy which dictates what processes will be carried out, in this case, public art policy, a policy that Councilmembers helped draft and has been upheld throughout many challenges. As a result, this City has a public art selection that is well loved by the community and enjoyed by visitors. She pointed out the Council and Mayor delegated the authority to the Arts Commission to initiate and monitor the public art process and recommend appropriate action to the Council. In this instance, the policy has been carefully followed and the public art jury and the Arts Commission have done their job. It is now time for the Council to do its job by upholding the public art ordinance, supporting the Arts Commission to whom this responsibility has been delegated, and doing what is best in the long term interest of future citizens. Helen Hansens, 20015 83'd Avenue W, Edmonds, observed many supporters of the Edmonds Arts Commission have spoken about the process and said they seem to forget the vote of the Council is part of the process. Their contention appears to be if the Council does not approve their recommendation, the Council is somehow failing the citizens, failing in their duty, and will destroy the Arts Festival and public art in Edmonds. She pointed out this was the first time the Arts Commission received a serious objection to one of their decisions. With regard to gifts to the City, the Council considers themselves owners rather than stewards as is apparent by the log cabin as well as the gazebo. She questioned whether those considering gifts to the City would wonder how their gift would be received by the City and felt it would have a negative impact on gifts to the City. She said the City depends on gifts from citizens to maintain ' its ambiance and culture. She said the gazebo was artwork and should be maintained. If it could not be maintained, she recommended erecting a duplicate. She pointed out this was not intended to be' an insult to Benson Shaw's work which is lovely and suggested another site be found for his work. M. J. Hopkins, 840 Puget Way, Edmonds, an artist and art facilitator for many years, questioned whether Mr. Shaw would resubmit his design again if a decision was made to begin the process again. She hoped he would, however, if she were in the same circumstance, she did not think she would submit Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 15 a design again without promise the process would be completed. Other artists in the future may answer in the same way and Edmonds will lose it preeminence in the art world. She hoped if the .Council chose not to authorize the artist's contract tonight, that the people who have spoken in favor of retaining the existing gazebo would have artists present a gazebo -like structure to be considered by the art jury so that there would be no doubt that the design had been considered and the Igazebo would be retained if that is what the public process determines. Mayor Fahey advised the list of speakers opposed to the jury recommended art selection had been completed but there were several names on the in favor of list.. She invited audience members who had not signed -in to speak in opposition to the jury recommended art selection, to'come forward. Phillip Howe, 22912.102 "d Place W, Edmonds, liked. the original fountain and did not see anything in the proposed design that captured the heart of a gazebo. He did not relate to the chrome balls on the top of the structure and said he did not get the affect of the supports to the balustrade looking like an inverted cedar tree. He liked the idea of incorporating cedars in the more traditional gazebo that citizens like and support. He requested the Council reconsider the process, postpone a decision, and give the process more time to "percolate." He said the current gazebo could be redesigned to include material that would satisfy accident provisions. Sydney Dunwell, 7631218 Ih Street SW #6, Edmonds, indicated she supports the process and hoped the Council would accept the project presented tonight. Mayor Fahey inquired if there were any -other members of the audience who wished to speak in opposition to the jury recommended art selection. No one indicated a desire to speak, therefore, Mayor Fahey selected an individual from the "in- favor" sign -in sheet. Marilyn Parker, 11116 Ih Ave SE, Edmonds, urged the Council to vote in favor of the new gazebo. She said many people appear to forget there is another gazebo one block south in Old Mill Town, a memorial to Gracie McKay.. She agreed the existing gazebo was a pretty structure and suggested it be moved to a park. She reiterated her request that the Council vote in favor of the new structure and adhere to the established process. Hary Harrison, 210 Sunset Avenue, Edmonds, said he liked the existing gazebo and commented it was especially beautiful with the flowers hanging from it in the summertime. He urged the Council to make the temporary structure permanent. Pamela Harold, 8311 Frederick PI, Edmonds, commented that she favored Cedar Dreams as it reflected the history of Edmonds. She trusted the public art process and the elected Council to uphold the process. She favored keeping Edmonds unique through artistic vision. J B. Halverson, 1042 Third Avenue S, Edmonds, indicated her agreement with the Ms. Harold's comments. Marcia Marsh, 15023 40" Ave W, Lynnwood, who recently moved to Lynnwood from Edmonds, observed the people of Edmonds love white, wooden gazebos. She pointed out there is another gazebo 1 %2 blocks south at Mill Town, another in Edmonds City Park, and another in the parking lot of the condominiums at Yd and Howell. She said the jury's selection is a unique, integrated art project, - designed especially for Edmonds, representing the past, present and future and will represent the City Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 16 into the next century. Ms. Marsh said her daughter, a resident' at 5`h and Main, indicated neither she nor any of her neighbors have ever been approached or interviewed regarding their opinion. Mayor Fahey inquired again if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak in opposition to the jury recommended art selection. No one indicated a desire to speak. Bruce Nickolson, 9829 Cherry Street, Edmonds, supported the Cedar. Dreams proposal. He indicated he has followed this issue since the beginning, has read all available information, and attended all meetings he was able to. Although he liked to see this type of turnout, he was disappointed this . involvement did not occur earlier in the process. He commented few showed interest in the initial phase of the project and accordingly their input may be in limited amounts. He said the process was well defined and the criteria well specified. He recognized this as a tremendous opportunity for the City, a complete intersection design rather than a small incremental piece. The pieces proposed by the other two finalists were individual pieces at the fountain and only this proposal encompasses the entire intersection. He observed citizens have gotten extremely involved in this process when there was a more important, significant issue before the City — the significant revenue shortfall that the Council and staff have been addressing. He challenged the residents of the City to work with the Council, get involved in the process early on and help guide the outcome. James Trumbull, 22506 Dogwood Lane, Woodway, said although the proposed art was lovely and complimented the artist, he said it did not look like Edmonds. He observed citizens were saying the gazebo represented how they want the town to be and remain — folksy, relaxed, unsophisticated. He said Edmonds is a unique town and the gazebo represented that uniqueness. He urged the Council to do what they could, within due process, to retain the gazebo. Ruth Hayes- Arista, 18431 High Street, Edmonds, a business owner in Edmonds and resident, said she really loved the gazebo currently in the downtown fountain area. When it appeared during the movie, it was enjoyed very much particularly since the space had been occupied by police barricades to increase visibility of the space after the fountain was destroyed. The gazebo was a nice change and fit quite a bit of the City's style. However, she really liked Cedar Dreams, as it took what a movie company started as a potential style and personalized it for the City. She pointed out a replica of the existing gazebo was considered in the process but Cedar Dreams was a gazebo that takes it a step further for the City. She said the process served the public well and the artists heard loudly that the gazebo was an item that was true, dear, and near to the hearts of many citizens. She said it was time for the City to move on to something that was reflective of the City's history, includes the cedars, the swirls of the saw blades, and will tell a story for generations. Florence Eberlein, 9610 216`h Place, SW, Edmonds, said the proposed piece of art would likely last for centuries and would become a spokes piece for Edmonds and something to be very proud of. She favored the Cedar Dreams artwork. Cami Smith, 9228 183rd Place SW, Edmonds, speaking as a mother, observed the existing gazebo was wonderful, quaint and cute but would not get much reaction from children. The proposed gazebo would involve children. Speaking as an Art Commissioner, she said the crediability of the City would be hurt if the process was not kept. People would not want to participate on art juries, the City wouldn't find artists who want to submit art and it would ruin the credibility of the community. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 17 Mike Jones, 12630 64`h Avenue W, Edmonds, endorsed the process as well as the proposed project. He said the gazebo meets the description of quaint, charming, old- fashioned, but is not art. The proposed piece is an art project and considered the popularity of the gazebo. He said he was surprised, upon viewing the breadth of the project, pointing out it does not just utilize the pre- existing fountain well but encompasses the street, pavement, and sidewalks. Ellen Ernst, 702 7" Ave S, Edmonds, was in favor of the jury recommended art selection. Rick Bader, 835 12 " Avenue W, Edmonds, commented that this represented a unique opportunity for the City to obtain a classic piece of art, an environment, that reflects the history and background of the community and also the future, a future that encourages artists expression and help the community be recognized throughout the northwest. He said the process was important and did a good job. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO EXTEND FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Tex Bunney, 11029 236th Place SW, Edmonds, supported the Art Commission's choice.. He observed the 500 volunteers at the Arts Festival equate to 25% of the 2,000 people who signed the petitions. He said 2,000 signatures from 105 stores represented 25 people during a 4 -6 week period although he was certain more than 25 people walked by the petition. This represented only 6% of the 35,000 Edmonds residents who signed the petition. He observed the other 94% represented a majority and 6% was not a majority, was not a mandate, and did not indicate the will of the people. Jill Ballard, 9630 Blake Place, Edmonds, endorsed the process and the final selection of Cedar Dreams. He recalled when his submission was chosen for the Meadowdale Playfields, there were a number of people who objected to his proposal. A number of those same people returned after the piece was installed, indicating it was really beautiful. He said some of the people who are opposed to the proposed design may have a different perspective when it is viewed in three dimension rather than two dimension. He recommended the proposed art piece be put in place. Jeff Fair said he was not in favor of or opposed to this piece of art because whether he liked the proposed artwork was irrelevant. He pointed out the purpose of public art was to engage the senses, spark dialogue and even create controversy. He said tonight's discussion represented engaging dialogue, some serious debate and some true controversy. He said rather than either side feeling they won or, lost, everyone was a winner because as a result of the process, the art process succeeded in the purpose of creating public art. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mayor Fahey gave assurance that the petitions that have been forwarded to the City have been duly noted, have been retained as part of the file and that point of view taken into consideration. The Council has had an opportunity to see copies of the petitions forwarded to the City. She said all the letters related to this issue have also been duly noted and retained as part of the file, especially letters that have been submitted since the public hearing process was announced. She said a packet of 20 letters was provided to the Council this evening (including one opposed to the jury recommendation, one expressing concern with the process and five who spoke tonight), 14 -15 letters specifically in favor of the recommendation. Although there may have been a problem with the public signing up to indicate their position (but not speak), she said approximately 15 people Who did not speak to the issue indicated they were opposed to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 18 the jury's recommendation and approximately 41 were in favor of the recommendation. She said there were also a significant number of letters included in the Council packet. Mayor Fahey said she appreciated the petition process but was aware there was a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about the petition process as evidenced by numerous calls to her office from people who were unaware there was a proposed art piece and their understanding that the gazebo was to be torn down and nothing constructed in its place. Callers also indicated their perception that the City was providing $75,000 of taxpayers' moneys. She said 5 -6 citizens who signed the petitions contacted her office requesting their names be removed from the petition. Mayor Fahey asked audience members who were in support of the jury recommended art selection to stand. She then asked audience members who were opposed to the jury recommended art selection to stand. Mayor Fahey said the Council was aware that some audience members left the meeting. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. As Council President Miller was not able to attend tonight's meeting due to a previous business commitment in Washington DC, Council President Pro Tern Van Hollebeke read a statement submitted by him. Council President Miller observed the questions before the Council were 1) is the site a designated art location, 2) is the ordained art selection process adequate and legal, and 3) did this particular process deviate from the ordinance. In his discussion with both Frances Chapin and members of the Save Our Gazebo committee, no one'argued the site was not a designated art location or that the selection process was inadequate or that the process was flawed. He observed Ms. Chapin did an exemplary job following both the letter and spirit of the ordinance and held an additional public hearing. The funds for the art selected were from private donation to the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, which he considered a worthy and gracious gift to the community. Council President Miller's statement observed the real debate appeared to center on the proposed artwork versus keeping the existing gazebo, a temporary structure. Since the designer of the gazebo did, not submit it for consideration, keeping the gazebo would require the Council to amend the ordinances dedicating this site for artwork and would also derail the existing art selection process. He said this was an issue the Council and community should have decided prior to a juried art selection. :Ile doubted that anyone in the community or the Council wished to decommission the roundabout from its status as an art site. He observed that although a replica for the gazebo was submitted, it did not make the final jury selection, alprocess established by ordinance and accepted by the Council in the past. Council President Miller acknowledged that he has publicly stated he enjoys the gazebo and felt it offered a sense of nostalgia and charm to the community. The recommended selection, Cedar Dreams, represents a true piece of art that captured the history of the City, engages the sense of community, and uses the existing gazebo in its design as a metaphor about what everyone enjoys about it. Council President Miller indicated the jury had done a superb job finding a lasting piece of art that could be treasured for generations. He said some member of the community reminded the Council during .the past several weeks that the City is a government of the people, by the people and for the people and that they should therefore bow to popular opinion. He said although this was true, the City is also a democratic government that operates under the rule of law as well. He was not convinced the City's processes were flawed, that the selection was in error or that anyone's rights were abridged. Council President Miller strongly supported the recommended action and encouraged Councilmembers to vote in favor of Cedar Dreams. As it would be a shame to destroy the existing gazebo, he suggested staff be directed to work with the community and` identify an alternative site for the gazebo, perhaps one of the gateways or parks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 19 Councilmember Earling thanked audience members for their commitment of time and energy to this process. He questioned how many would remain when the Council considered the City's $20 million budget. He said the Council was not to adjudicate the quality of the art presented by Mr. Shaw or the existing gazebo, the Council was only to adjudicate the public process outlined by ordinance. In his opinion, the process had been fair, open, thoughtful and thorough, a process Ms. Chapin and the Arts Commission should be proud of. He found Mr. Shaw's work intriguing, stunning, and a piece that would have long lasting importance to the community. He said he had a petition in his office, a necessary part of the due process. Some of his agents signed the petition. He said the interest in preserving the artistic process and artistic freedom was the reason the process was in place and represented a principle he could not walk away from. He supported the recommended action. He was the'CounciFs appointee to the art selection jury and participated in what was a thorough and commendable process. He stressed the jury did not make the final decision, the Arts Commission made the final decision. The decision for the Council is whether the process was followed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEEE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES UNTIL 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist said he reviewed the minutes from 1973 regarding how the fountain was purchased. Minutes from six meetings that year indicated a similar response to tonight when people turned out in mass to voice their opinion regarding whether they wanted a "piece of art" in the middle of 5`h and Main to replace the Christmas tree. He said concern over the removal of the Christmas Tree was the biggest issue at that time. He observed how arts in the community have grown, noting the Arts Festival was previously held in the fire station. He said the Arts Commission was established in 1974 as a form of control and he was proud of the way the Arts Commission had performed. He pointed out none of the audience members attended the meetings when he served on the jury for the selection of art for Hekinan. He liked the energy of Cedar Dreams, noting it was good for the City. He said the existing gazebo cannot really be enjoyed and would be better located in a place the public can walk through it, not around it, possibly at the cemetery., In response to a comment by Ms. Yard, Councilmember Haakenson explained several months ago Betty Bell, Edmonds Museum Summer Market, asked if he was interested in moving the market or would like it to stay where it was. He told her the summer market did a fine job on Bell Street; if they wanted to stay there, they could. If they wanted to move, they were welcome to discuss it with the City. Like Councilmember Earling, he was impressed with the number of people that attended tonight's meeting. He was discouraged that the Council could discuss spending $20 million of taxpayer's money and not have anyone show up. He agreed with Council President Miller's comment that this is a public art site, that the ordained art process was adequate and legal, and public hearings were held to allow public participation in the selection process. He said in January, he appointed Councilmembers to art selection juries, Councilmember Nordquist to the Hekinan project and Councilmember Plunkett to the Lynnwood Skate Park. Three Councilmembers expressed interest in serving on the roundabout site art selection jury. Two Councilmembers made their thoughts regarding the gazebo clear, Councilmember Earling did not say anything and was selected as he appeared to be unbiased. Councilmember Haakenson said the process had not deviated from the ordinance and had been a .good -process. He thanked Ms. Chapin and Arts Commission Clerk Kris Gillespie for their assistance with the process. In response to Council President Miller and Councilmember Nordquist's suggestion to place the gazebo elsewhere in the City, Councilmember Haakenson favored keeping the gazebo in the City but not in a place that was reserved by ordinance for public art. He said locating the gazebo in a gateway Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes. November 30, 1999 Page 20 was an excellent idea and said. he would work with anyone willing to assist with identifying a suitable location for the gazebo. Councilmember White said he was one of the Councilmembers who indicated he did not like the gazebo and he still did not. He found it curious that two of the finalist projects selected bad gazebo themes, as that would not be his first choice. He said although Councilmembers have personal opinions, a process was established for resolving such disputes. He said he could not circumvent the process or create a new process just because he did not like the process or the result of the process. He did not weigh the issue based on the number of red ribbons or white badges in audience or on petitions because the issue is whether the process codified in the ordinance was followed. He was convinced the process had been followed. Although he was not thrilled with the result and would have been less thrilled if an artist's exact replica had been chosen, he still would have supported the decision. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke observed the participation of citizens represented the victory. He agreed the process had been followed and he supported that process. He indicated he was thrilled with Mr. Shaw's tying the City's history into the project. He was excited about standing with his young grandson on one of the corners and explaining all the features and meaning of the artwork. He supported the recommended action. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO, TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR THE RECOMMENDED ACTION, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH THE ARTIST, BENSON SHAW, FOR CEDAR DREAMS, WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO CONSIDER A NEW LOCATION FOR THE EXISTING GAZEBO. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess. Budget 6. BUDGET DISCUSSION Discussion Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler displayed scenarios from the November 23 budget discussion, the property tax levies voted on at the November 23 meeting, the increase in the EMS levy, the restoration of swimming pool revenue assuming the swimming pool will be restored to its entirety, new permit/building fees, and eliminating the transfer from Emergency Reserve in 2000. She explained these changes resulted in total adjusted revenue in 2000 of . $20,889,000. She noted the amount of permit/building fees may change as further analysis of activity level the Planning Department was basing their revenue estimate on indicates this amount may be overstated. Ms. Hetzler itemized additions the Council recommended including avoiding layoffs, restoring Senior Center funding, restoring Alliance funding, restoring the flower program, restoring the Community Service Director position, restoring police and fire overtime budgets ($20,000 each), restoring the pool season to its entirety, restoring the Public Safety support positions (custodian and fire mechanic), adding a building inspector position, and $38,000 in miscellaneous adjustments that lower expenditures (a reduction in the proposed increase in the mayor's salary, a reduction in the public defender's budget and the elimination of an increase included in the budget for the prosecutor which was not requested). She commented the addition of the building inspector position is somewhat connected to the new permit/building permit fees and both will need to be analyzed in the next few days due to the uncertainty of revenue from the new permit/building fees. She advised total adjusted expenditures are $21,1294,774, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 21 a difference between current revenues of approximately $405,000 which will be addressed by the cash carry forward, resulting in $811,000 in available cash. Ms. Hetzler reviewed the impact these decisions have on 2001 and 2002. The picture for 2001 still results in a deficit between expenditures and revenue of $732,000 but there would be sufficient cash carry forward to cover that, ending the year with $78,000, allowing sufficient -time to formulate a plan for 2002 when the deficit continues to grow because the rate of growth 'in expenditures continues to outpace growth in annual revenues. Councilmember Earling asked Ms. Hetzler to describe the factor used to calculate the revenue increase each year and how reflective it was of the projected economy. Ms. Hetzler answered revenues are nearly flat because the ability to increase property tax and any other revenue increase in 2000 (with the exception of sales tax) would be subject to .a public vote. She estimated a 2% growth factor in revenues in 2001 and 2002. ' Councilmember Earling asked what factor was used to determine expenditure increases such as salaries. Ms. Hetzler answered 2000 expenditures were adjusted for anything that is being paid off next year, such, as the library debt service, and salaries increased by 5 %, the historical rate of inflation for COLAs, merit increases, and CPI. It was the consensus of the Council to present this budget at the December 7 public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett expressed his appreciation to Ms. Hetzler for the work she has done in presenting the budget information, presenting it in a manner that is understandable. Councilmember White referred to the increase in police and fire overtime budgets suggested last week and said Police Chief Hickok indicated he would rather have than the Administrative Assistant position funded, which would require an additional transfer of $14,000 from other sources which he has. Councilmember White suggested the appropriate adjustment be made in the budget to allow Chief Hickok to fund that position. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke pointed out built -in expenses for COLAs, etc. are 5 %, not 1.42% but an automatic increase of 5% each year. Mayor Fahey pointed out this budget reflects definite reductions; there are still three vacant positions in the Police Department that are not going to be filled. Councilmember Haakenson said the budget represented cuts of nearly $1 million. 7. MAYOR'S REPORT , Tree Mayor Fahey thanked the. Chamber of Commerce and merchants who sponsored/created /provided the Lighting wonderful tree lighting ceremony. She invited the public to visit the tree in its new location at eremony Centennial Plaza. She said holiday events are published in the newspaper. 8. COUNCIL REPORTS There were no Council reports. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYO SANDRA S-. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 30, 1999 Page 22 LL AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 650 MAIN STREET 7:00 -10:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 30, 1999 SPECIAL MEETING 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE FROM ABA NETWORKS INCORPORATED IN ORDER TO EXPAND TO A 4 -DIGIT EXTENSION SYSTEM ($6,530) (C) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE AN OXYGEN ANALYZER FOR THE TREATMENT PLANT FROM FIELD INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS FOR $4,400 (D) PROPOSED RESOLUTION DECLARING A SINGLE SOURCE OF SUPPLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO ADDITIONAL MOBILE COLUMN LIFTS FROM TALON INDUSTRIES (E) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TWO SEFAC MOBILE COLUMN LIFTS FROM TALON INDUSTRIES INC. ($14,878.20) (F) PROPOSED RESOLUTION FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL NEEDS AND JUSTIFYING THE RECAPTURE OF THE MAXIMUM LAWFUL PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR THE CITY AT A RATE OF 4.22 %. THIS INCREASE OF CITY REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES OVER THE 1999 LEVY EQUATES TO A RATE EQUAL TO 11.9% OR $748,392. A LEVY OF $.4738 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AT A RATE EQUAL TO 106% OR $71,660 IS ALSO DETERMINED. (G) PROPOSED ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS, INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR 2000 BY 11.9 %, LEVYING AN EMS LEVY OF .4738 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION, AND LEVYING .2248 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX (H) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 3.20 BUSINESS LICENSE AND OCCUPATION TAX TO ADD A NEW SECTION 3.20.050 TO LEVY A TAX ON THE CITY'S SEWER UTILITY (I) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 4.72 BUSINESS LICENSE, 4.72.020 BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED TO DELETE REQUIREMENT THAT BUSINESS BE OPERATED FROM REAL ESTATE WITHIN THE CITY, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4.72.040, SUBPARAGRAPHS (B), 1 THROUGH 3, TO ESTABLISH A LICENSE FEE OF $25.00 FOR TRANSIENT BUSINESS LICENSE FOR TRANSIENT BUSINESSES (J) PROPOSED RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY'S PLANNING, ENGINEERING, PUBLIC WORKS, BUILDING AND OTHER FEE STRUCTURES, INCLUDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE 3. (15 Min.) ANNUAL REPORT FROM PUBLIC DEFENDER JAMES FELDMAN 4. (15 Min.) ANNUAL REPORT FROM PROSECUTOR JEFFREY GOODWIN 5. (90 Min.) 6. (30 Min.) 7. (5 Min.) 8. (15 Min.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 30,1999 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC HEARING — PRESENTATION OF JURY RECOMMENDED ART SELECTION FOR THE FOUNTAIN ROUNDABOUT PROJECT LOCATED AT 5T" AVENUE AND MAIN STREET, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH ARTIST BUDGET DISCUSSION MAYOR'S REPORT COUNCIL REPORTS 'arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance otice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46. Delayed telecast of this meeting ppears the following Wednesday at noon and 7:00p. m., as well as Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46.