19681001 City Council Minutes0 TRAFFIC LIGHT - THIRD AND DAYTON
City Engineer Larson asked authorization for a date for proposals to be opened for a traffic light
at Third and Dayton, and it w as moved by Councilman Tuson, seconded by Councilman Kincaid that
September 30th be set as the date to receive proposals for a traffic light at Third and'Dayton.
Motion carried unanimously.
SUNSET BEACH PROPERTY CONDEMNATION
A motion was made by Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Tuson that the Attorney be authorized
to start proceedings for condemnation action on the Sunset Beach property, and the motion carried
unanimously.
ADVERTISING FOR CALLS FOR BIDS
Councilman Nordquist inquired why all calls for bids, including heavy equipment were not advertised
in the Daily Journal of Commerce. It was answered.that many calls for bids were placed in the
Daily Journal of Commerce,but that smaller items are not because of the cost.
APPOINTMENT TO AUDITING -COMMITTEE
To replace Councilman Bennett, who asked to be relieved of his duties, Mayor Harrison appointed
Councilman Nordquist to the Auditing Committee, and it was moved by Councilman Tuson, seconded by
Councilman Nelson that the Mayor's appointment.of Councilman Nordquist to the Auditing Committee
be confirmed. Motion carried.
Fire Chief Cooper reported on the progress of the articulating arm aerial platform truck on order
for the Fire Department.
There was no -"further business to come before council, and the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
City Clerk CARM =_
October 1, 1968
ROLL CALL
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order by Mayor Harve Harrison with
all councilmen present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the meeting of September 17 had been posted and mailed, and since there were no omissions
nor corrections, they stood approved as presented.
HEARING: ON STREET NAME CHANGES FOR CITY OF EDMONDS
Hearing was held on the proposed street name changes for the City of Edmonds, studied by the following
committee: Mrs. JoAnn Warner, Mrs. Duane Romo, Mrs. Harry Foster, LeRoy Middleton, Jerald Lovell,
and Donald Nelson. City Planner Merlin Logan outlined the numbering system which is now used in the
City of Edmonds and gave an explanation of the county grid system and city numbering system. He then
presented the committee's recommendations and proposals for a new numbering system and street name
•
changes for the City of Edmonds. Mr. Logan also suggested some minor refinements to eliminate any
possibility of confusion in the proposed system. Hearing was then opened.
No one in the audience wished to comment on the proposed street numbering changes, although a letter
had been read at a prior council meeting against any change. Hearing was closed.
Since the councilmen had -not had an opportunity to study the proposed street name changes, a motion
was made by Councilman Tuson, seconded by Councilman Nordquist that this matter be postponed to the
council meeting of November 5th in order to give the council time to study the recommendations from
the committee for the street name changes. Motion carried unanimously.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO SEWER PETITIONED PORTION OF UNIT 6
Mayor Harrison reported that to date Lynnwood had still not considered or negotiated for use of their -
trunk sewer line by the City of Edmonds and that he would perhaps attend a Lynnwood City Council
meeting to see if this matter could be placed on their council agenda. It was therefore moved by
Councilman Haines, seconded by Councilman Nordquist that the proposed Resolution of Intention to sewer
this petitioned -for area be postponed until the meeting of November 5th. Motion carried unanimously.
FURTHER CONSIDERATION FOR SEWERING UNITS 5, 6, & 7
Mayor Harrison explained the history of Sewer Units 5, 6 and 7 from the original petitions and letters
from the County Health.Department to.the.present status. City Engineer Leif Larson then reported on
the engineering study which had been done for the slide area'stability in Meadowdale. He summarized
this report from the engineering study, which indicated the instability of this slide are and that any
drainage, either sanitary or storm, would benefit the area; add to the stability of it; and any
sewering would be a definite improvement, although there would still be an element of risk in the.
installation and permanence of sewer lines in this slide area.
Petitions had been received, signed by approximately 78% of the property owners, for sewering of Units
5 an d 6, excluding however the area south of the Meadowdale Junior High School which has a separate petition
for sewers. At this point, the Mayor read a letter from Hoyt J. Caple urging the City Council not to dele to
the portion of Unit 7 with its health and water problems and also asking that the city further pursue
application for federal funds in order to provide sewer service for all of Districts 5, 6, and 7. The hearing
was then opened.
A gentleman expressed surprise that the City Engineering Dept. had not researched old records and surveys
which had been made of the Meadowdale slide area and the City Engineer answered that all past reports had been
surveyed by the engineering firm which had then given its report to the City in regard to the stability of this
area in question. Bruce Himberlee stated that he was not opposed to sew ers, and felt that neither were the other
people, but that they were opposed to the cost of the sewers. Mr. Sam Felton said he was speaking for not only
himself but his neighbors; that they felt it was unfair for two sewer Units 5 and 6 to have to face the cost
of sewering Unit 7 because of the great problems in the Unit 7 area. Pat Crawford cited the critical problems
in the Unit'7 area, and stated that sewers were needed there right now, regardless of the high cost, and that
the other sewer units should not abandon Unit 7 because of the cost. Robert Small, who owns property in a
section of Unit 7 that is regarded the "safe area" from slides, wished that the sewers would go in as originally
planned. Mike Chambers, whose property is in Unit 6 located on a side -hill, complained about the price of the
sewers, and was against inlclizding Unit 7. Mrs. Caple, Unit 7, stated that there were only two or three small
areas which have definite geological problems in Unit 7 and that the entire unit should not be condemned until
the engineering costs are figured. 0
Max Gellert, Unit 5, said that there was a drastic need for sewers now' and that 78% of the people in.5 and 6
were asking for this by petition. Mr. Stillings, in the area•of Unit 7 which they were trying to delete,
agreed that everybody needed the sewers in that area and that the City owed the citizens sewers at a reasonable
price. A gentleman asked why Units 1, 29 3, and 4, as well as Units 5 and 6 could not help with the cost of
Unit 7. A woman in the audience noted that there were polluted streams in the Meadowdale area end felt that
this should be cleaned up by installation of sewers at once. A gentleman from Unit 6 noted that no action
could be taken without preliminary cost figures on the project. Mr. Caple added that the City should get the
cost estimate on the complete area, Units 5, 6, and 7. Engineer Larson explained the comprehensive sewer
study and how each sewer unit came about by development of areas into Units. Bob Anderson had a question in
regard to the pump station in Unit 7 as well as one required in Unit 5. Max Gellert felt that Unit 7 could
wait and have its own LID separately in the future and that since there were no problems involved in Units
5 and 6, these should be started at once. Doug McCorkle said his major concern was that sewers be put in as
soon as possible and that in 3 weeks• 78% of the property owners had signed a petition for these sewers. Beryl
McLaughlin noted the receipt of an estimate in July, but that some property owners did not receive their
notice and the question was also asked regarding federal funds. He also had a question on the cost of the
project. The City Attorney explained the LID payment procedure and the bonding. Cliff Lawson, Unit 7, said
he was astonished at the people's tactics in Units.5 and 6 in getting the petitions signed, and deleting Unit
7. He mentioned that the Health Dept, survey letters at the beginning of this project should be considered
and that the entire area be sewered all at once.
Mr. Wagner, Unit 5, questioned if the Lynnwood Treatment Plant was adequate to handle this added sewerage,
and that he had noticed odor coming from the Plant. Norm Nelson asked how much area was proposed to be left
out in Unit 7, and he questioned why the cost was so high since some parts of Unit 7 have an "easy digging
area". Mrs. Peal, Unit 6, asked how the council felt about taking all the areas at once, or each separately.
Councilman Bennett reviewed the history of the proposed LID for Units 5, 6, and 7, including the reports from
the Health District, etc.
Councilman Bennett then made a motion, seconded by Councilman Haines that the City Attorney be instructed to
prepare a Resolution of Intention for sewering of all of Units 5, 6, and 7, excluding only the area separately
petitioned for that is located south of.the Meadowdale Junior High School. At this point, a gentleman in the
audience noted that Councilman Haines was a resident and property owner in Unit 7. Councilman Haines answered
however, that he had questioned the City Attorney about abstaining from voting"onthis entire matter, and had
been advised that according to law, a councilman had to be a resident of the City in which he served, and
therefore he would occasionally have to vote on items which would necessarily be of a personal nature, but the
Attorney saw no conflict of interest here. Jim Rothaus, Unit 6, had a question on the cost estimate.
Councilman Nelson felt that there was no need to combine the sewer units as in Councilman Bennett's motion, and
that the council could act upon each unit separately. He felt if all the units were combined, Units 5 and 6
would probably protest and spreading the zone front foot cost over three units perhaps was not fair. If each
separate unit was given its opportunity to protest, this might be a better idea and he therefore thought
three separate Resolutions of Intention would be in the best interests of all concerned. Councilman Kincaid
stated that he was not in favor of Councilman Bennett's motion. A roll call vote was taken, with five
councilmen voting against the motion to order a Resolution of Intention for all Units 5, 6, and 7; Councilmen
Bennett and Haines in favor, and the motion failed to carry.
It was then -moved by Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Tuson that the Attorney be instructed to prepare
an ordinance for sewering of Units 5 and 6 by the petition method. A roll call vote was taken, with five
councilmen voting in favor, Bennett and Haines both abstaining, and the motion carried. Councilman Tuson
then moved, seconded by Councilman Kincaid that the engineering for Unit 7 be done at the same time as that
for Units 5 and 6, and that every -avenue of financing be explored for Unit 7, with this engineering for
Unit 7 not to be chargedito the LID for Units 5 and 6. Motion carried.
PORT INNER HARBOR EXPANSION
Council was shown plans for the inner harbor expansion for the Port of Edmonds, and a motion was made by
Councilman Kincaid, seconded by Councilman Tuson that the City inform the U. S. Corps of Engineers that the
City of Edmonds has no objection to the boat harbor expansion as planned. Motion carried unanimously.
BODINE PARKING AREA
Having been presented with the plans from Mr. Bodine showing the parking area around his proposed building
to be in the proposed state highway access R/W area, a motion was made by Councilman Kincaid, seconded by
Councilman Nordquist that the plans as proposed by the .Bodine's be sent to the Highway Dept. to inform them
of the parking area in the proposed R/W. Motion carried.
COUNCIL POLICY ON CONTRACT ZONING
Following study at a council committee meeting, and discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Bennett,
8
46-&
seconded by Councilman Kincaid to establish a council policy that any proposal on contract zoning
presented to the City Council must first be heard by the Planning Commission without recommendation
from the Council, and that the proponent of the contract zoning submit the proposal to the Planning
Commission in writing. Motion carried unanimously.
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
Claims for damages were acknowledged from M. Critchley and from Arnold E. Bowsher. These were
referred to the City Clerk for processing.
TRAFFIC LIGHT AT 3RD AND DAYTON
Proposals had been opened on October 1 at 2:00 P.M. for installation•of a traffic light at 3rd and
Dayton. Bids were:
Service Electric Co. $2,380.00 plus tax
Signal Electric, Inc. .29589.10
Emles Electric Co. 25275.00
General Service Electric, Inc. 29192.00
The City Engineer recommended that the low.bid be accepted and a motion was made by Councilman Bennett,
seconded by Councilman Nelson that General Service Electric, Inc. be given the job of installing the
light at 3rd and Dayton at a cost of $2,192.00 plus tax and the Mayor be authorized to have the PUD
install a pole at this intersection. Motion carried.
AUTHORIZATION - CALL FOR BIDS ON POLICE CARS
A motion was made by Councilman Nordquist, seconded by Councilman Tuson to authorize a call for bids
for 4 police cars with bucket seats, bids to be opened on October 21 at 2:00 P.M. Motion carried.
UNION OIL BEACH
In regard to the proposed use by the City of the Union Oil Beach property, a motion was made by
Councilman Kincaid, seconded by Councilman Bennett to authorize the City Attorney to prepare a one-
year lease with the Union Oil Co. for use of the beach, including first rights to purchase. Motion
carried.
PROPOSED PARK RESTROOM STRUCTURE
It was moved by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Councilman Nelson to authorize the expenditure of
$1,500.00 to Jack McClellan for plans for park restroom structures. Motion carried.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #289
Planning Commission Resolution #289 was to council, recommending the denial
presented of a proposed
amendment to the zoning map from CG to RMH property described in Planning Commission File R-12-68.
This was in the Ballinger district and it was recommended that it was not desirab le to encourage
high density apartments -because of inadequate streets. There had been no appeal made, and it was
therefore moved by Councilman Nordquist, seconded by Councilman Tuson to uphold the denial of the
Planning Commission in their Resolution #289. Motion carried unanimously.
FIRST READING: PROPOSED -ORDINANCE
Council heard the first reading of a proposed ordinance Regulating the Invasion of Street R/W.
APPROVAL OF PLAT
The plat of Seaview Woods was presented.to-council, and after study it was moved by Councilman Nelson,
by Councilman Kincaid
seconded that the City approve the final plat of Seaview Woods. Motion carried.
There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M.
City Clerk Mayor
October 7, 1968
1969 FINAL BUDGET HEARING
In accordance with state law, hearing was, held on the Final Budget for the City of Edmonds for
the year 1969 on Monday, October.7, 1968.
Hearing was called to order by Mayor Harve Harrison with all councilmen present.
Mayor Harrison then introduced the following members of his Citizen's Laison Committee who were
in the audiences James Sawyer, Bob Lakey, Bill Nelson, Bud Hartwick, Pat Healy, and Ken
Welling.
Mayor Harrison then called on City Supervisor D. C. Lawson to present the budget, and
Supervisor Lawson explained each individual budget item. Following this, the hearing was
opened.
Police Judge William J. Goulder requested that another look be taken at the salary of the
Police Judge. He did not believe that it should have been cut $25.00 per month from the
preliminary sheet that he had seen. It was explained that many cuts had been made on the
0