Loading...
08/20/1991 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO SEPTEMBER 3. 1991 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING August 20, 1991 At 6:30 p.m., Council President Wilson called to order an Executive Session in the Small Plaza Meeting Room to discuss legal and property matters. The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Council Presi- dent Wilson at the Library. Plaza Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Jack Wilson, Council President Jeff Palmer, Councilmember Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember William Kasper, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember CONSENT AGENDA ABSENT STAFF Larry Naughten, Robert Chave, Planning Div. Mgr. Mayor Art Housler, Admin. Serv. Dir. Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Dir. Buzz Buzalsky, Fire Chief Brent Hunter, Personnel Mgr. Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Alice C. Brown, Recorder Councilmember Dwyer requested Item (B) be removed from Consent Agenda; Councilmember Hertrich requested Item (F) be removed; Councilmember Palmer requested Item (G) be discussed. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO ACCEPT THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL (C) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SHELLEY L. WEBSTER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) (D) AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL ON HOWARD ANDERSON WATERFRONT PROPERTY ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2846 AMENDING CITY CODE RELATING TO SKATEBOARDS (H) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 720 AUTHORIZING GRANT APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR AN URBAN FOREST STUDY AT YOST PARK AND PINE RIDGE PARK f��' (I) AUTHORIZATION TO REPAIR SPORTS COURT AT HUMMINGBIRD PARK ($1,000) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 1991 [ITEM (B) ON CONSENT AGENDA] Councilmember Dwyer referred to Page 18 of the August 6, 1991 minutes, and stated that in the motion for a three minute time limit where he seconded the motion, he did not in fact vote yes. - COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO ACCEPT THE CHANGE TO THE AU- GUST 6, 1991 MINUTES TO SHOW THAT COUNCILMEMBER DWYER VOTED NO; FURTHER THAT THE CHANGES GIVEN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO THE LAST THREE PARAGRAPHS OF PAGE 3 BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PRESENT PARA- GRAPHS THEREIN. MOTION CARRIED. That correction is as follows: "Mr. Snyder further explained some of the present constraints. Authorization of the bonds and a report regarding the removal of contingencies will occur on August 20, which will be the final formal approval. There are a number of contingencies in the agreement. If the contingencies in the agreement are removed, the City will proceed to close in 60 days. A $30,000 deposit was previously approved at the June meeting. There are contingencies that could cause the Council to second-guess, but the numbers referred to were authorized. Part of the Council's hesitancy to discuss certain aspects relates to the confidentiality provision of the Commercial Sales Agree- ment. "Ms. Shippen wondered if the confidentiality business was going to take place in Executive Ses- sion, to which Mr. Snyder 'responded that the approval of the purchase of public property can take place in Executive Session. What was discussed in Executive Session was the exact terms of those commercial leases, and such a confidentiality provision is standard in a commercial purchase of this type. They had negotiated the provision to provide that information essential to the public approval, which would include the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, which are public information. "Mr. Snyder emphasized that after the City has removed the contingencies, all numbers will be available. Basically, the City could get in a position where it might be compelled to purchase the property whether it wanted to or not by breaching the provisions of the confidentiality provi- sion." ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEALS OF HEARING EXAMINER DECI- unm Aid rYDAWfTnR AF vnrpwnnn RAPTTcT MIRCH AT 20406 76TH AVE. W. (APPELLANTS: GLORIA S. KENNEDY/AP-6-91; AND LEE KIRK, AGENT -FOR EDGEWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH/AN-JU-91 tiltm Ir) un Luivzotni AGENUA-J "rJ Councilmember Hertrich stated that the proposed findings did not include a requirement that he had made by motion. He referred to the July 16, 1991 minutes which stated, on Page 4, sixth line from the bottom: "Councilmember Hertrich moved, seconded by Councilmember Dwyer, to amend the motion to instruct staff to include dedication of 10' on 203rd St. Motion carried." COUNCILMEM- BER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 CONSENT AGENDA AND INCLUDE THAT REQUIREMENT IN THE FINDINGS. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO NOTIFY SNOHOMISH COUNTY OF THE PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY FOR THE CITY OF �-EDMONDS LIGEMNT AGENDA].. 7� COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO DISCUSS ITEM (G) AFTER ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE Ms. Nancy Farrill, 19525 - 86th Avenue West, was present to state that she was opposed to the fire station site. She said it was a quiet, calm area, except for 196th S. W. If the proposed fire station is built at 86th West, it would be unsafe, due to lack of unstructured intersec- tions I , large ditches. The second site is 84th West and 196th S. W., and this would not be good due to trucks, buses, volumes of large traffic. She wished to convey to the Council to save the taxpayers' money and upgrade the Five -Corners fire station. Councilmember Jaech stated that the City is not planning to put a fire station at that location, and she wished to put that idea to rest. Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, brought several signs, explaining he had found some nailed to a telephone pole on 9th and Walnut Streets, with the "For Sale" signs at 9th and Pine Streets. He stated his family has been threatened because of signs on their property, and he was wondering why others were able to put signs out illegally. He further stated he had signs stolen from his �+ property and political signs have been torn down on 9th Avenue. Councilmember Hertrich referred to the removal of signs, saying that this is a very emotional issue in the Edmonds community, and he felt Mr. Demeroutis should comply with the rules as well and not remove the signs. The majority of signs that get destroyed he did not feel were an obvi- ous intent to take a candidate's sign, and hopefully it is malicious mischief only. Councilmember Kasper informed Mr. Demeroutis that after his complaint he had spoken with the City Attorney about getting the letters out. Mr. Snyder said he had drafted a letter for the staff to send and the letters were being sent out. Councilmember Kasper said he had checked, and the letters to date have not been sent. Councilmember Palmer interjected that whether anyone agrees or disagrees with the method that Mr. Demeroutis has employed, he has brought something to Council's attention, and fair and even admin- istration of the code is the concern. If all illegal signs are not being dealt with in the same manner, steps need to be taken to correct this. Councilmember Kasper felt the question to be whether his signs are legal or not. He said the signs Mr. Demeroutis displayed are not illegal. Where signs are legal, do not send a letter. On a lighter note, President Wilson suggested that Mr. Demeroutis deliver the signs to the right- ful owners on Wednesday, thereby "cleansing him of his sins". The audience portion of the meeting was closed. REVIEW OF PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE EDMONDS SHOPPING CENTER (SAFEWAY COMPLEX) (A) REPORT ON REMOVAL OF CONTINGENCIES OF SALES CONTRACT FOR EDMONDS SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTY Art Housler, Administrative Services Director said these matters had been reviewed in Executive Session, and deferred to Mr. Snyder to summarize the legal aspects. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Paqe 2 August 20, 1991 Mr. Snyder explained that the Purchase and Sale Agreement provided basic contingencies (granted by legislation). (1) For any environmental factors the city has conducted a review and at present there are no environmental factors that would constitute a contingency under the agree- ment. (2) A second contingency related to reviewed leases, and these were found to be in proper order with minor problems which might be expected for any corporate or business entity, and will be taken care of by estoppel certificates. (3) If there are conditions relating to the property noted by the Building Inspector which substantitally differ or comprised a situation different than the property, it would be represented to be not habitable. Council has received a report regarding the roof which will require substantial cost to repair and it will be left to the Coun- cil as this issue is reviewed. (B) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 721 DECLARING VARIOUS PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR EDMONDS SHOPPING CENTER PROPER- TY AND ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC PROCESS TO PRIORITIZE COMPETING PUBLIC INTERESTS FOR SAID PROPERTY Mr. Snyder explained that Resolution 721 is a compilation of the public uses discussed by the Council. It establishes a public process to determine an appropriate public use or uses. The City's Planning Board sits as its Park Board and makes recommendations regarding use or capital improvements with respect to property, particularly regarding capital improvements affecting park property. The resolution intends to state public purposes which have been discussed to establish a general process with public input through the City's Park Board, taking recommendations to the Council regarding prioritization of the potential public uses of the property, and to tie those potential uses and prioritize these into various state statutes. Mr. Snyder further stated that under the Growth Management Act, capital improvement expenditures need to be part of the City's C.I.P. Certain uses of the property that require capital invest- ment by the Council, i.e., parking use, downtown parking, etc., have specific state statutory procedures. The resolution is not intended to establish a public use, but rather a process for determining that public use with public input. Lee Voorhees, Legal Bond Attorney, with Foster Pepper & Shefelman, was introduced by Mr. Housler, who stated Mr. Voorhees would discuss ,the uses for which cities may bind themselves into agree- ments. Mr. Voorhees stated he had an opportunity to review Resolution 721 which is before the Council for action, and can join in recommending favorable consideration of the resolution, as it will lay an appropriate basis for the issuance of bonds to finance the acquisition of the property that is proposed. Mr. Voorhees informed the Council that as a code city, Edmonds has the authority to engage in a multitude of public purposes. The City has the authority to engage in all the activities of any class of Washington City, including parking, public facilities, circulation and transportion, open space. Other kinds of lawful municipal activities will be appropriate uses of the property if it is acquired by the City, and it will be appropriate to finance that acquisition with issu- ance of limited tax obligation bonds as recommended by the City's investment bankers. Mr. Housler stated that Peter Hahn would review Exhibits 4 through 7, regarding inspection re- ports, geotechnical reports, and appraisal reports. Mr. Hahn stated that on City authorization Landau Associates did a geotechnical assessment, as well as an environmental assessment, which included in the Council's report. He stated he and the City Engineer had reviewed two reports, and it clearly showed the building technology which would be needed if new structures would be constructed. There were no major surprises on the environmental assessment. The Building Official and the Facility Supervisor, had walked the site together with the managing partner of the property, and the Council had that report. Mr. Hahn stressed that the major concern is the condition of the roofing. That condition is fairly serious and certainly within 10 years replacement of a substantial part of the roof would be expected. This replacement could be as much as 80%, and that was also contained in the report before the Council. The HVAC system was also the subject of the investigation by the staff, and the independent appraiser, and was not a major concern at this time. Council President Wilson asked for any public comment. Nick Verwolf, attorney for Harbor Square Associates, raised some points for consideration about the presentation with regard to bonding and funding. He felt there was questionable validity to acquire the property for these uses. He spoke about two constitutional amendments. One is Amend- ment 14, Article VII, Section 1, of the Washington Constitution which says ..all taxes shall be levied and collected for public purposes only". The second is Article 8, Section VII, providing that no city shall give any money or property or loan its money or credit in aid of any individu- al association, company or corporation. Mr. Verwolf stated that on the face of it it sounds innocuous and may seem to fit in the provi- sions. However, in fact the property is being acquired and being placed into the private sector EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 August 20, 1991 with the prospectus that at some time in the future there may be a use for this property. The property is being acquired, leases are being assumed which will go to private enterprise upon its acquisition. This is unlawful under the laws of the State of Washington. A municipality is absolutely prohibited from acting as a financing conduit for private enterprise, whether it be buying real property for resale to a private purchaser, or for leasing to private enterprise. He submitted that this falls direfctly within this prohibition. The test, Mr. Verwolf continued, of a public use is not an expected future public benefit. An expected future public benefit does not negate an otherwise unconstitional loan which leasing to private enterprise consists of. As laudable as the City's intentions may be to come up with some potential use of the property, it is clearly invalid and beyond the exercise of the City's author- ity to do so. Mr. Verwolf said he would be willing to discuss with the Council some other projects, such as the Westlake Mall project in Seattle. That project was stopped by declaratory action when the city was developing that property primarily for public use, but also involving some retail uses. The courts upheld that that was unlawful. One cannot acquire property for the benefit of private enterprise, and that is what we are faced with in this situation because it opens up the acquisi- tion for direct attack in the courts. Councilmember Palmer asked Mr. Verwolf if he represented the potential purchaser of the property, and the answer was "no". Mr. Snyder strongly urged that if someone has a challenge, that they bring it immediately. Re- garding the case cited of the Westlake Mall, he stated it to be a good example. The City of Seattle attempted to purchase private property for the purpose of resale to a private developer, which was struck down in the courts. The city purchased the property, turned it over to a pri- vate developer, and built a small park on a portion, and that was upheld. He stated the City of Edmonds, as with most other cities, leases some public property to some private entities. He mentioned the lease of Anderson Center to Olympic Ballet, leasing of the meeting room to private parties on a regular basis. Leases can be a part of the package of provision of public servic- es. The public use must always predominate. The Edmonds Shopping Center is to be a public use at an appropriate time, and until that is determined, any lease of the property in the interim is a way of deferring taxpayer cost. To further clarify, Mr. Synder stated that the purpose of the purchase is not to compete in the marketplace or provide a financing vehicle for private commercial's interests. If purchased, it would'be for public uses. The question would only be that of when those public uses were initiat- ed and not if they would be initiated. Mr. Verwolf cited two properties which were initially acquired for public use and later for some exigencies oddly enough were not restricted by law, but said it is what is rented out to private enterprise. Acquisition itself in the initial phase for an immediate use which is not a public use falls within that prescription. Councilmember Kasper stated that what is obvious is that consultants were hired to study the whole area for redevelopment, including the ferry dock, and as far as the Council is concerned this is a key issue. He felt it is key to the City of Edmonds to control that property until this process is done. Mr. Verwolf said he did not question the Council's motives, but did question the legality. Mr. Snyder stated that part of the services which Mr. Voorhees will provide through the sale of the property through bonding will be giving legal opinions to the Council addressing these issues. Mr. Voorhees informed them that if bonds are issued for the purpose of acquisition, his law firm will furnish an approving legal opinion that the bonds are validly issued. He believed that the Council is, or will be upon the passage of the bond ordinance and the closing of the sale transac- tion, authorized to own the property and devote it on an interim basis to private uses and to use the property ultimately for public purposes. They would be able, if circumstances then dictate or make -it wise in the discretion of a future council to sell all or parts of the properties to private parties. Council President Wilson asked Mr. Housler about potential deficits, to which Mr. Housler replied that the figures have been gone through in Executive Session, and the scenarios are that monies taken in from the leases will be able to cover the debt payment. Perhaps there will be a surplus to take care of maintenance items. In this regard, there would not be any monies taken from general fund money to take care of the debt service and maintain the operation. Council President Wilson asked about potential management of the property, and Mr. Snyder replied that there have been a variety of discussions and reports, and it is important that the objec- tives be in the public record, due to the issues raised by Mr. Verwolf. The record should be EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 August 20, 1991 clear that recommendations to the Council are in the interim regarding marketplace rental; there will be no subsidation of commercial firms with tax dollars. Part of the recommendation is to hire a property manager, and to establish rents in accordance with the marketplace, and these assumptions are in the figures.that Mr. Housler is using. Council President Wilson wanted to see the rental figures maintain the integrity of the market- place. Mr. Housler stated that should the Council decide to buy this property, the Mayor has two propos- als from management firms that would oversee the property at a given fee of the gross leases. Therefore, the City would be relying on experts to obtain the market value for the property. Councilmember Palmer asked Mr. Housler if they were going to refer to Exhibit 7, and Mr. Housler stated that the Council instructed staff to select a firm that would look over the financial records (maintenance expenditures) to determine if they were reasonable, and the Mayor picked the CPA firm of Greenwood, Ohlund & Company. The report was not available when the Council packets were submitted, but was available this evening. Patrick Ebert from that firm was present to make some general comments, and the figures had been distributed to the.Council. Mr. Ebert informed Council that his firm was engaged to analyze expenses relating to the shopping center on August 13th. Mr. Dykes, the property manager, was not available to go over any records until Friday, August 16th, so there was only one full day to devote to this. At this point, Mr. Snyder spoke regarding the confidentiality of this information at this time, suggesting that Mr. Ebert's report contain only a general summary without referring to specific proprietary information. If the Council then had specific questions, they could recess to an Executive Session, but he cautioned the confidentiality must be kept in mind. Mr. Ebert continued his review of the seller's projections, and felt there were no material modi- fications to those projections, finding they are not exactly on the numbers but were not far off. He mentioned that the report contained the 1988, 1989, and 1990 income and expenses through July 31st. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if Mr. Ebert had viewed the property, and the answer was yes. He then asked if he had ever done other property, and was also told yes. Councilmember Hertrich was interested in the maintenance costs, and whether it was in line or low, and Mr. Ebert replied that these expenses are in line, given the age of the buildings, and they will grow yearly until major renovations are done. The roofing expenses would be. constant with repairs, work orders, complaints from tenants for leaks. Mr. Ebert had obtained this infor- mation from looking at financial records. Renovation would bring the maintenance cost down. Councilmember Hertrich asked if the yearly maintenance cost is based on the poor condition of part of the building, and was told that the majority of the maintenance is for roofing. Mr. Housler spoke regarding the financing aspect of the project, specifically Schedules 8 through 12 dealing with finances, bond issues, meeting all legal requirements and requirements of bond people to put the package together. He introduced Dick Ehlers, Vice President, Dain Bosworth, the City's financial advisors. Mr. Ehlers spoke regarding financing for the City to close the transaction by the end of Septem- ber, assuming they go ahead with the process. He stated they were on a fast track, since typical- ly it is four to six weeks before they market bonds. Exhibit 8 is a schedule which would allow them to market bonds in two weeks and give cash in 2-1/2 weeks. The tasks that need to be done are (1) the writing of an official statement describing the City and the security of the bonds, and the demographic and economic information that potential investors need to make a decision; (2) they need to have bonds rated, which takes some time. They have a commitment from Moody's Investment Service that they will get their rating done by the end of next week, assuming that the package is sent to them on Wednesday, August 21st; (3) they need time to do the marketing effort to find people interested in investing in these bonds in order to provide funding. Mr. Ehlers stated Exhibit 13 shows a time schedule to get this done. The date talked about in that is the week of that date. According to the schedule the money would be available on Septem- ber 25th and 26th. One item the Council needs to be aware of regards the fast track in order to accomplish this. Mr. Ehlers asked that there be a September 7th meeting to consider the purchase offer and bond ordinance. They are looking at actually pricing and marketing the bonds on Wednes- day, September 4th. Investors do not like going over a long weekend without knowing whether they have their money invested' or not. It is important to be able to tell those investors that the Council will consider the purchase contract without going over the weekend. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Paae 5 Auqust 20, 1991 Mr. Ehlers stated these bonds would need to be taxable bonds. He recalled the Anderson Center bonds, where investors did not have to pay income tax on the bonds. Bonds such as those being discussed cannot avail themselves of tax exemption, and have to be issued as taxable bonds. The rates are slightly between .7 and one percentage point above U. S. Treasury borrowing cost, which is attractive. Councilmember Jaech asked about short term, mentioning that the City does not want to pay that rate if they qualify in the municipal bond classification, to which Mr. Ehlers replied that they can refinance at tax exempt rates at the time the project is converted it to public use; however, the total benefit comes after the 10 year period. Councilmember Jaech asked if it was legally possible to put in a call after 5 years, to which Mr. Ehlers replied that investors are resistant to earlier calls than 10 years. There was discussion of why these need to be issued as limited tax general obligations bonds, as opposed to a "revenue bond", which is based solely on the revenue of the property. The answer was that when issuing limited tax GO bonds, the assumption is that the source of payment is the property. The city is asked to back up the city's credit behind the bonds. The revenue source is generally concentrated, very limited, and they will not assume real estate risk. Investors would have to be basically familiar with the real estate market and the property and become privy to the confidential information. Mr. Ehlers stated that if you could get investors interested, you would have to borrow more than you require to purchase the property and to put a reserve aside for one year. Further, they would require that revenue from property would have to cover debt service for 1-1/2 to 2 times, which means if the annual debt service is $300,000, the City would have to have the property generate between $450,000 - $600s000. Mr. Ehlers continued by referring to interim versus long term financing, bringing their attention to Exhibit 11. He cited three things (1) uncertainty of financing (construction and property costs); (2) interest rates are high -=could borrow on an interim basis and figure the rates are going to come down enough that interest saving would cover the cost of doing two transactions; (3) legal restraint on issuing long term financing. Mr. Ehlers stated he did not see any of those holding true on this transaction. The costs are certain, bond market is strong, costs of doing two transactions would be perhaps 1% of $30,000. Moving to Exhibit 12, Mr. Ehlers spoke about the debt service schedules. He said they have used interest rates ranging from 7% for bonds maturing in one year, up to 9.2%, the bonds maturing in 20 years. He felt today's market and numbers are.solid. Councilmember Dwyer asked why 20 years was picked, and whether it was a traditional period or was it based on potential uses of the land. Mr. Ehlers replied that it involves the annual debt service, which would fit within the revenues of the property. Council President Wilson asked why not put the call in 10 years, and was told that you can make changes in property; refinancing to tax exempt rates will have a fixed dollar benefit. If you do that in 10 years, that benefit will be spread over a 10-year period. If you do that same benefit at 7 years, the same total dollar benefit would be spread over 13 years. There was further discussion and explanation regarding annual debt service, with Councilmember Jaech asking for an.actuad example, such as a five-year rollover. She specified that if the City goes out and issues bonds, with a call at five years, what happens and what is the cost at that point if the City calls them. Mr. Ehlers stated he did not have an answer to this at this time. Councilmember Jaech stated they need that information on how they are going to issue those bonds, and need a comparison on options so they can make a decision. Mr. Ehlers responded that the problem is because of the tax laws. Councilmember Kasper asked how many different options the City has. Councilmember Jaech stated that an investor does not want to buy a bond that can be taken away from him in five years, but this is not going to be a big issue. Mr. Ehlers said that if they are willing to have bonds mature in a five-year period, it can be structured as a term bond risk, small maturities. Typically they do put a call feature in, and a five-year call is certainly a possibility if investors can be found that are willing to buy bonds on that basis. He will have more information for them on August 27th. Councilmember Jaech asked Mr. Snyder what the time constraints were, and he replied that the removal of the contingencies expires on August 31st. If the contingency period passes, it will close on September 30th.. 'The City has an additional 30 days to look at the property for a cost of $30,000. Councilmember Jaech said that given some of this information, she did not like to vote on some- thing she did not understand. She felt the requested information needed to be brought back. She EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 August 20, 1991 pointed out that because Council is looking at something of a short term nature where the proper- ty is to convert over to public use, at that point there would not be a revenue base to help the payment. She asked if this would affect what the City is doing. Councilmember Dwyer said that the City needs cash in hand on September 30th to consummate this transaction. He asked what the cost and/or ramifications such as going to the bank would be. Mr. Voorhees stated that the City of Edmonds can exercise only those powers that are expressly created by statute. The Washington courts are quite literal in their imposition of that require- ment. When a municipality is going to borrow, it will want to consummate the transaction. Wash- ington cities do not have the power to mortgage their property, and most banks will not do a loan unless there is real estate security. Beyond that there is some question whether a Washington municipality, particularly a code city, has the power to go out and make a bank loan for a partic- ular project purpose, as distringuished from a line of credit for a revolving loan account which has been provided for by statute. Therefore, there are two problems (1) the inability of cities go give real estate security; (2) the authority to enter into a bank loan for that purpose. Mr. Voorhees continued that there are three conventional ways that a Washington city would fi- nance: (1) General Obligation Bonds, approved Councilmatic bonds; (2) revenue bonds, which is an expensive way; (3) an installment purchase agreement, which might be for many years' duration (a contract), specifically authorized by statute in which title remains with the seller. A General Obligation Bond is really the best way, as it provides the lowest rate. If in fact the lease payments are adequate to pay all the debt service, it would be paid off as though it were a reve- nue obligation, even though -it is not. Mr. Voorhees alluded to a question asked about why these bonds are taxable. He explained that these bonds will be private activity bonds under the Internal Revenue act of 1976. Initially the property will be used in the private trader business of non -tax exempt entities and persons. Coupled with the fact that the leases on the property will be producing revenue each year more than equal to 10% of the debt service of the obligation, then they cannot be tax exempt at a future time. Councilmember Palmer asked 'if under that tax code it is based on a percentage basis use of the property, and the answer was 10% and 10%. Before 1986, it was 25% and 25%. Council President Wilson questioned what would happen to the obligation debt if there was a shorter term call, wondering if the City would suddently be faced with some revenue to offset it, or if they would be faced with a general fund obligation of some substance. Councilmember Jaech hypothesized that if the City had to use the property for a ferry parking lot (which she did not favor), and if it turned to totally 100% public use, there would be no revenue from it. She did not want to pay inflated interest rates on the bonds because of no income that that rating was based on. She wondered if these bonds could be converted to a lower interest rate, or if the bonds in fact could be converted. Mr. Ehlers stated that the timeframe for inter- im financing is basically the same for doing a long term bond issue, as it takes just as much time. Mr. Ehlers proposed that if they can get together in a week, and if they want to go with a 20- year bond issue, they could give a five-year call and a 10-year call and still meet the sched- ule. They do need to get a package off to the rating agency in order to get a credit review, however. Councilmember Jaech questioned since the City has not gone out for bid on this, how would they know if this is a good rate, and Mr. Housler informed her that Yeasting & Hughes, the bond adviso- ry associates, will review the market. Councilmember Jaech asked, assuming that the Council votes to approve this purchase, and that they go ahead while awaiting a report from Yeasting & Hughes, if it means that they can get the bonds in order to close when they are supposed to. Mr. Ehlers replied that the City is not bound until September 7th. On further clarification from Mr. Snyder, the date for closing was estab- lished at September 30th, the problem being that if Council goes beyond August 31st they will have to come up with the money to delay it. Mr. Housler asked if the date of September 7th could be moved, and Mr. Ehlers stated that since it is a short week the meeting could take place on Friday or Saturday morning, whatever meets their schedule to accept the offer. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED 70 VOTE ON ACCEPTING THE OFFER OF DAIN BOSWORTH. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND. Councilmember Jaech stated they need to decide if they are going to proceed, but need informa- tion, and then everything else will fall in place. It was determined that Councilmembers Palmer, Jaech, Kasper and Nordquist would be available to meet August 27th. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 August 20, 1991 Councilmember Dwyer asked for a short in Executive Session due to proprietary information, as he did not want to place anything in jeopardy. The meeting recessed at 9:15 p.m. to Executive Session, reconvening at 9:32 to continue the dis- cussion. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND QUESTIONS, IT WOULD BE IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS TO HAVE DAIN BOSWORTH GO BACK TO OBTAIN THE RATING FROM MOODYS, AND GET IT IN PROCESS, TOGETHER WITH WHATEVER THEY NEED TO EFFECT THIS. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL NEXT TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991, AND ENSURE THAT IT BE DULY NOTED TO THE PUBLIC THAT A MEETING IS BEING HELD. FURTHER THAT THE SAFEWAY PROPERTY MATTER WILL BE THE ONLY AGENDA ITEM. THE MEETING WILL TAKE PLACE AT 7:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOB DESCRIPTION Personnel Manager Brent Hunter stated this was being brought back to the Council at their request Yt.J for approval of the new position. The consolidated savings to the City would be approximately $10,000, and he asked for approval of the job description. There is a new City Clerk, and they now wish to recruit a new Deputy City Clerk, with a break-in period of six months, giving the new City Clerk an opportunity to learn her job. After this time period, the Council will be given a report on how more duties can be allocated so the Deputy can assist the City Clerk. Mr. Hunter further stated that if the Deputy is not available to take minutes, they would like to have permission to hire a contract person. Councilmember Kasper mentioned the taking of minutes of the Disability Board and Civil Service, and was told this would be taken over by the City Clerk. Councilmember Palmer noted the request for approval is at a Grade 8 for six months, and after six months it would be reassessed. He further stated that Councilmember Dwyer had recommended a Level 7, and this issue should be resolved at this meeting. Councilmember Palmer felt that if the duties no longer fit with the grade level, the grade should go down after six months. Councilmember Dwyer stated he had read the retreat verbatim minutes, and questioned what "recom- mendation #1" was. Mr. Hunter clarified that it was referring to Mr. Housler's recommendation to phase into the changeover, or in other words move at a gradual speed for six months. Councilmember Hertrich felt that for the time being they should go with an agency, stating that during this six month period it would not obligate the city. If the person is busy, the agency can provide another person to do the job. This seemed to him a good idea until the City Clerk gets into a pattern, and he did not want to hire a Deputy City Clerk at this time. Councilmember Nordquist reminded them that Councilmember Jaech had recommended this at the last meeting, and this would give the new Clerk the opportunity to settle in. Based on what he had been told by friends, Council President Wilson felt they should find a court reporter who is computer literate, and they would spend less than 50% of their time doing min- utes, cutting it down dramatically. The employee would then be available to do other things. Mr. Hunter stated his inquiry found that Court Reporters charge up to $35 per hour, plus $3.00 per page. Councilmember Dwyer responded that court reporters charge up to $35 per hour, but that there is a difference between what they charge on the market and what they earn. He felt for steady work for an extended period, an acceptable rate could be arranged. He asked Mr. Housler just what "recommendation #1" was. Mr. Housler responded that at the retreat he had recommended that the Council decide at what level they wanted the minutes to be, and it was the consensus that they be kept as they are pres- ently done. Therefore, 36% of the Deputy's time would be spent on minute taking for the Coun- cil. He stated that he had further recommended that after they have the Deputy City Clerk and a reorganization has taken place, the new telephone system with voice mail would be installed and there would be more utilization of the receptionist. However, to the 36% of the time used for Council minutes, Planning and ADB minutes were being added. He said the two new persons areuntrained persons, and as such they will not be able to do the level of work which Jackie Parrett has been doing for eight years. He said the crucial first few months will be an orienta- tion process. Council President Wilson asked if this person is going to back up the City Clerk, and Mr. Housler replied that they would be coming back after a few months to report on how it is working. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 August 20, 1991 Council President Wilson questioned the hiring of a full time person, and Mr. Housler stated they will utilize the Purchase and Communications Clerk to assist the City Clerk with postings, going to Everett, and other things to obtain more productivity. He felt strongly that the new persons would need time to acquire the experience that Ms. Parrett has brought to the position. Councilmember Palmer felt that having both people new to the area was not good, since they would both be learning at the same time. He felt that supplementing for six months before hiring would be a good idea, and then do a six-month analysis on the City Clerk's position. Mr. Housler stated that the perception of the Council is that this is in concrete, but he did not wish to say that. It is proposed that initially they would like to use a contract person for the minutes. He did not want the new City Clerk to take the minutes and then be back on the job Wednesday morning. Councilmember Kasper stated that what was being discussed was no backup, with new people on the job. He felt it would take them a year or a year and a half to be up to speed, and that the new people will be lucky to get the job done. Not hiring does not solve the problem. Council President Wilson stated that if you hire a court reporter who can take the machine and plug the information into the computer, that it prints the minutes automatically. That person can be working then for the City. Councilmember Kasper questioned who will edit those minutes. Mr. Housler asked that the Council allow these two new people to break in, since there will be a learning curve. Councilmember Jaech felt that the Council was saying that simply hire a contract person during this interim period, instead of hiring a Deputy right now with two people trying to learn. It would be better to get another court reporter who is not a permanent employee of the City. This will give time to make an assessment. She suggested that perhaps an agreement can be made with an agency for less than $35 per hour. Councilmember Dwyer stated that if someone is an employee they are getting benefits. Someone who is getting $35 an hour is also sending Christmas gifts, buying you lunch and gifts to keep you asking them. It was established by Mr. Housler that the persons who have been taking the minutes have been getting $14 per hour. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO HIRE FOR A SIX- MONTH PERIOD A CONTRACT PERSON WHO IS A SOLE PRACTITIONER, WHILE THE CLERK IS IN TRAINING, TO PROVIDE SERVICES AS A MINUTE TAKER. Councilmember Hertrich felt that they should first obtain costs, with Councilmember Palmer adding that if they knew what the selling figure was, a decision could be made. MOTION CARRIED. WITH COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST, JAECH, HERTRICH, PALMER AND WILSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER AND DWYER VOTING NO. DISCUSSION REGARDING PUBLIC WORKS SITE Mr. Peter Hahn presented the staff findings, stating that before entering the contract with the consultant they need to address two issues. One issue is Fire Station #2, and the other issue is / what interest, if any, the Olympic View Water District might have. Councilmembers Kasper and Hertrich will have more to say on the second matter, and they will know more by October 1st. He ,7•� expressed his need for discussion from the Council on what they felt comfortable with and to direct how the contract should look at this point. He stated that the Fire Chief would speak regarding the Fire Station. Mr. Hahn also noted that last week the last remaining parcel on the northwest corner was obtained in court. Councilmember Kasper stated he thought the decision had been made, and now it looks as though it hasn't, and Council President Wilson stated that it had not been made. Councilmember Hertrich spoke regarding the Olympic View Water District meeting they had attended on Monday evening regarding the sharing of facilities at the public works site, and the possibili- ty of their putting any or all of their vehicles or materials at that site. He said there was a reasonably nice discussion, and they would like to come back in September and will have a better answer then. Councilmember Kasper added that the Olympic View people did say there would be very limited stor- age, such as vacuum cleaning trucks and possible maintenance things. Mr. Hahn felt that this could work where they would allow expansion space for equipment storage and material storage, or fittings (such as hydrants, etc.). He emphasized this is fine as long as they do not have their city hall as part of the complex, and no sharing of showers, lunch rooms, etc, and as long as there is a firm commitment. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Paqe 9 August 20, 1991 Councilmember Dwyer felt this would not be a problem. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT FOR PURPOSES OF DESIGNATING THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE ARCHITECT DESIGNING 212TH STREET SITE FOR A CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS CENTER, AND CALCULATION IN THAT PLAN, THE SCOPE OF THAT WORK COULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBLE.LEASEBACK OF EXCESSIVE AREAS. MOTION CARRIED. Fire Chief Buzalsky was present, and referred to a letter of July 9th directing him to look at the site, and he had felt obliged to look for better sites and had in fact found some. These have been in places with which people are uncomfortable, however. Working with surrounding agen- cies he has learned he needed to look at the big picture, not just for Edmonds. Now he was ask- ing the Council which way does the City want to go. Does it want an Edmonds only facility, or an overall community facility to protect Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO EXTEND THE MEETING BEYOND THE 10:00 P.M. TIME. MOTION CARRIED. Chief Buzalsky continued with the dimensions needed for a facility to be 200' x 200', perhaps of two -stories. Councilmember Hertrich asked, considering the interlocal agreements and where the station is presently at Five -Corners, could the chief make a choice between Five -Corners and 212th. Chief Buzalsky stated that they need and want a site large enough to have a training tower, which would give them a better grade with the insurance company. He stated there is a desperate need for a training area. Council President Wilson urged the Fire Chief to make a decision, since they need to have one by September loth. He stated this could not go on much longer. Chief Buzalsky felt that they need a quality site which would last at least 20 years, and would need a tower to go with it. Councilmember Palmer stated there was, a contrast in what is being said, since there were very pointed responses given at the Boundary Review Board hearing, saying Lynnwood is diametrically opposed the interlocal agreements. When we look to the north, they are of dubious value. Chief Buzalsky answered that the Lynnwood Fire Chief said they had no intent of withdrawing, and he had been advised that some of those comments were made in the heat of the discussion. Councilmember Jaech said that recently citizens had expressed concerns about a fire station in their neighborhood. The main question is do we or do we not want it on the Public Works site at 212th. She said Edmonds is not looking at building somewhere else, but people are becoming con- cerned, and there has been no hearing on this yet. She said the basic question is do you want to move this to the Public Works site, and that was the only thing they were to consider. Chief Buzalsky stated there is a definite need to expand. Councilmember Kasper did not feel anything had changed and felt this had been decided. He said $20,000 was spent for a fire study, and this came about because of Fire Station No. 1 building a station before we isolated where it should be. The population and density has not changed. The conclusion was that we were trying to help work with them, and if this location is not where we should build it, then where is the Public Safety Committee. Council President Wilson stated this is not the Public Safety Committee's problem, but rather the Mayor's. Chief Buzalsky stated that the contract that the District has with Lynnwood is an agreement to look at the consolidation, and they will hire a consultant by month's end. This will involve the City of Edmonds in the discussion for the protection of Esperance. This will not happen until the consultant gets on board. District No. 1 had a meeting, but Lynnwood and Edmonds were not present at this meeting. Council President Wilson spoke about the difficulty in developing the Five -Corners site, and Chief Buzalsky stated that there has been work for three years, with the lot frontage being small, but with more property behind it. This three years has included work on permits and de- signing a fire station for that location. The plans are for 6,700 square feet, which will house three bays, a truck company, aid car, and will sleep eight people. While the design is down the road, it will be an adequate station. Council President Wilson said he had a conversation with a Lynnwood Councilperson, and that none of their members will stand in Edmonds' way of working with them to take over the Esperance sys- tem. Councilmember Palmer was asked to reiterate his original motion. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 August 20, 1991 AUTHORIZATION TO NOTIFY SNOHOMISH COUNTY OF THE PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY FOR THE CITY OF EDRO DS—tJITEM G ON CONSENT AGENDA) Planning Manager Rob Chave clarified that this is just Snohomish County, and is intended to get discussions started with the County. They can do a similar letter to King County, and this is just to get the ball rolling. The Council wished to discuss this further. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO PUT THIS ON THE SEPTEMBER 16TH WORK MEETING AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Council President Wilson stated they will discuss the bike trails contract and the parks contract on the evening of September 16th. Space needs and discussion of the waterfront downtown area will also be discussed on September 16th. With regard to the legal matter discussed in Executive Session, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPEAL THE SUPERIOR COURT DECISION REGARD- ING THE MAYOR'S TWO -TERM LIMIT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; AND THAT IT BE UNDERSTOOD THERE IS SOME MONEY LEFT OVER FROM THE COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS AUTHORIZATION; AND THAT A CAP OF $10,000 BE PLACED ON THIS EFFORT; AND THAT PAYMENT WILL BE PAID FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGEN- CY FUND. Councilmember Dwyer asked Councilmember Palmer if it was his intention to vote on this, and Coun- cilmember Palmer stated he had discussed the matter with the City Attorney, and it is considered a legislative matter, and he was free to vote. Councilmember Dwyer's opinion was that Councilmember Palmer had a proprietary interest in the outcome of the litigation as one of the five people who are running for an office that pays over $50,000. If the litigation succeeds, 'it was Councilmember Dwyer's opinion that it enhanced Coun- cilmember Palmer's changes of succeeding in his election. He said if he were in that position he would not choose to vote. There have been many discussions on the issue about what is legal and what is not legal, and the corollary to that is what someone should do or should not do. He stated even if it is technically legal for Councilmember Palmer to vote, he should not do it. Councilmember Palmer responded that he appreciated the comments and he agreed his proprietary interest to be in upholding the ordinances of the city. He stated that as a Councilman that is what he was elected to do and that is what he will do by voting on the issue. Councilmember Nordquist personally thanked Council President Wilson for taking time to talk to him regarding the issue. He wanted to say for the record that the citizens of the city have spoken to him and others regarding the first time money was spent, and some of them are concerned and want to settle it themselves. He further stated that while he supported it the first time, his decision at this time was not to support the spending of the money. Councilmember Dwyer stated that $17,000 had already been spent, and the best estimate is that another $10,000 will be spent at the Court of Appeals level. The advice tonight which they had been given was that nine justices were wrong in declining the case and that Judge Allendoerfer was wrong in ruling against. us. Basically $17,000 had been spent for legal counsel to tell us that we are 0 for 10 with judges. It is about time that we stop spending taxpayer's money on this political action. Up to a point spending taxpayer mondy could have been justified, but in Superior Court, what Mr. Snyder said would happen did happen. We chose to ignore Mr. Snyder, and now we are going to ignore Judge Allendoerfer and adopt this and spend $10,000 more. At this point we are doing nothing more than spending taxpayer money to further a political campaign and to answer political questions. Councilmember Kasper said he looked at it from the standpoint that people should not have encour- aged the Mayor to run in the first place. Whether it is unconstitutional or not, the law stood. The Mayor did nothing about taking the law out or going to court on it, and now you want to push it on the people, and it is not overruled yet from the State Attorney General's Office, and he felt our law is good, and it is our obligation to support that law. He stated that if you read the minutes, he (the Mayor) didn't second the motion, he made the motion. He felt it was a mat- ter of ethics, and he said he would support the motion. Councilmember Hertrich felt the same way that Councilmember Dwyer felt, only he stated he thought it should go on the ballot. He felt this had been pursued because several members want to profit from it personally, and he felt it could ultimately benefit Councilmember Palmer both politically and financially. He stated that the voters are aware of what Councilmember Palmer was doing, and that it would have a negative impact, and felt he should from a moral standpoint step down from voting. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Paoe 11 Auqust 20, 1991 Councilmember Palmer replied that it was clear whom Councilmember Hertrich was supporting in this, with every vote that Councilmember Hertrich made favoring a particular candidate, who is the seated Mayor. He said if any opinion has been ignored, it is the State Attorney General's opinion. He cited that the Mayor himself was willing to have this issue decided at the highest court, the State Supreme Court. This is not being taken at this time to the State Supreme Court, it is an appeal to the appellant court. Councilmember Palmer stated further that the fact that persons disagreed with him politically is a fine motivation for their vote, and he had no problem with that. He stated they could do what they have to do and he was going to do what he had to do. In closing, he stated that the people of Edmonds believe in the ordinance, and the legisla- tion, and they want it upheld, and that is how he was going to vote. Councilmember Jaech stated she would not get involved in the politics which were going back and forth, but she stated that Councilmembers Kasper, Nordquist and she were on the Council when this was passed. They looked at a lot of different things, and term limitation was not done in a closet. The public came and spoke on it. The ordinance has been in effect for almost eight years, and no one has come forth to say that this is a bad ordinance. We do have an ordinance on the books for our city, and going out to the voters does nothing but confuse the issue. She stated that the only thing that can tell us whether it does or does not stand is through the court process, as she understood it. Going to the voters in the middle of the election does nothing to solve the issue, and she suggested doing it before the next election, but not in the middle of an election. Councilmember Dwyer clarified what he meant, and stated he also believed it too late to go to the voters on this question. He said what he was talking about is this is part and parcel of an ongoing campaign. He stated that something has changed now and that this is not a law. He said what is trying to be done is restoration of a law that has been legally struck down. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH, KASPER, PALMER AND WILSON VOTED YES; COUNCILMEMBERS NORD- QUIST, HERTRICH AND DWYER VOTED NO. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO FURTHER EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hertrich wished an opportunity to speak to the press regarding the bare majority in the four to three vote which had taken place. Council President Wilson told him he was out of order to do this. Councilmember Nordquist said there were two Health District issues, but said he would defer them to the next meeting. Councilmember Palmer referred to a memo from the City Clerk regarding the July 2, 1991 minutes. Although the minutes had been indicated approved at the August 6 meeting, the correction to them had not been stated. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE A CHANGE TO PAGE 2, THIRD LINE, OF THE JULY 2, 1991 MINUTES TO SHOW THAT COUNCILMEMB£R WILSON 5 ALSO VOTED "NO" ON THE MOTION TO PLACE THE EMS ITEM ON THE BALLOT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Palmer asked that the City staff follow up on CU-43-91, as the posting of a deci- sion was not preceded by any notification of hearing. Mr. Snyder explained that setback adjustments, home occupation uses, etc., are basically staff decisions, with an optional hearing if appealed. Councilmember Jaech asked how people would appeal if they do not know there is an issue in ques- tion, to which Mr. Snyder replied that the staff makes a decision based on an application, and the homeowners may appeal before the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Kasper felt that with regard to the Safeway property, the discussion was positive proof that "we do not have our act together". He felt there should be better instructions to the staff because work had not been done. n� Councilmember Jaech reminded Mr. Hahn that at a previous meeting she had requested information on P/ what the Building Inspector does or does not inspect. She specifically wanted height informa- tion, plan check information such as who measured, how it was measured, and all this in regard to buildings at the corner of 6th & Walnut. The neighborhood knows what the height limit was there on Walnut, and the building should not be the same as the one behind it. Mr. Hahn stated he will give a separate report with the measurements requested. Councilmember Jaech asked Mr. Hahn about the vacant lot at 5th and Holly, and what was happening there, to which he replied that there is a development pending and something will be there to guard it. Councilmember Jaech felt strongly that if some child falls off there, they would have EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 August 20, 1991 just cause to come back to the City, and she would like to see something at least temporary there. She stated she had seen small children hanging over there. The meeting adjourned at 10:39 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 APPROVAL. THE OFFICIAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES IS ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. JACQU LINE G..PARR TT, CITY CLERK LARRAUM7N, MAYOR EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 August 20, 1991 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. AUGUST 20, 1991 SPECIAL MEETING 6:30 P.M. - EXECUTIVE SESSION - LEGAL/PROPERTY MATTERS - (60 MINUTES) FLAG SALUTE 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 1991 (C) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SHELLEY L. WEBSTER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) (D) AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL ON HOWARD ANDERSON WATERFRONT PROPERTY (E) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2846 AMENDING CITY CODE RELATING TO SKATEBOARDS (F) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEALS OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION ON EXPANSION OF EDGEWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH AT 20406 76TH AVE. W. (APPELLANTS: GLORIA S. KENNEDY/AP-6-91 AND LEE KIRK, AGENT FOR EDGEWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH/ AP-10-91) (G). AUTHORIZATION TO NOTIFY SNOHOMISH COUNTY OF THE PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS (H) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 720 AUTHORIZING GRANT APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR AN URBAN FOREST STUDY AT YOST PARK AND PINE RIDGE PARK (I) AUTHORIZATION TO REPAIR SPORTS COURT AT HUMMINGBIRD PARK ($1,000) 2. AUDIENCE 3. REVIEW OF PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE EDMONDS SHOPPING CENTER (SAFEWAY COMPLEX) (60 MINUTES) (A) REPORT ON REMOVAL OF CONTINGENCIES OF SALES CONTRACT FOR EDMONDS SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTY (B) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 721 DECLARING VARIOUS PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR EDMONDS SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTY AND ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC PROCESS TO PRIORI- TIZE COMPETING PUBLIC INTERESTS FOR SAID PROPERTY (C) AUTHORIZATION FOR BONDING AND PAYMENT MECHANISM IN CONNECTION WITH PURCHASE OF EDMONDS SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTY (D) APPROVAL OF INSURANCE BROKER FOR PROPERTY INSURANCE 4. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DEPUTY CITY CLERK JOB DESCRIPTION (10 MINUTES) 5. DISCUSSION REGARDING PUBLIC WORKS SITE (20 MINUTES) 6. MAYOR 7. COUNCIL 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROPERTY MATTERS THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE