19721219 City Council Minutesn
LJ
380
negotiating with the Edmonds School District for the use of part of the facilities
at the Edmonds Elementary School for some of their activities. This space would
include about four classrooms, restroom and the gym. A proposed draft of the
agreement states that the District would make that space available from December 15,
1972 to August 15, 1.973 at a cost of $300 per month. The District would provide
heat, light and water, the City would provide day to day operational checks and
the School District would provide janitorial services. Mr. Garretson at this
time has not completed his program, so has no idea what the revenue would be to
offset the lease expenditure. However, he believes the gym would be used most
of the time. A motion was made by Councilman Nordquist and seconded by Councilman
Winters to postpone any decision on this matter until December 19th at which
time the council can discuss it with Mr. Garretson. Motion carried.
There being no further business to come before council, the meeting was adjourned
at 9:20 P.M.
I Aol��
Irene Varney Mora City Clerk
December 19, 1972
ROLL CAT.T.
Harve arrison, Mayor
The regular meeting of Edmonds City Council was called to order by Mayor Harve
Harrison. All council members were present except Nelson.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the meeting of December 12 had been posted, mailed and distributed,
and with no omissions nor corrections, they were approved as written.
COUNCIL PARTICIPATION
Councilman Haines inquired if a reply had been received from HUD as requested.
Mayor Harrison answered that a letter as requested in entirety had been received,
signed by Mrs. Steele.
Councilman Gellert, referring to appointments to various boards and commissions
made by the Mayor at council meetings, said that he felt council in many cases
did not know enough about these people whoseappointments they were being asked
to confirm. He asked if perhaps the appointees could be present on the day of
their appointment, and possibly if each councilman might receive a resume' with
their qualifications stated.
Councilman Tuson commented on the press release which said the councilmembers had
been pressured by Department Heads, and other Staff employees in reference to the
budget they had adopted. Councilman Tuson wanted to make it clear that he was in
the habit of making his own decision as he saw it, and had not been pressured by
anyone in making up his own mind on the budget or any other matter.
Mayor Harrison reported on a note added to a returned questionnaire from Chester
Olson which asked why a private citizen has to spend $25 to appeal to the Board
of Adjustment when the basis is a complaint between the Building Official and the
citizen. The Mayor said he was bringing this to council attention because he was
• also concerned about this fee. He conceded that a plat, variance, or conditional
use might involve something of value, but in this case of appeal perhaps a $10 fee
would suffice, and he asked the City Planner if the $25 was justified. City Planner
Merlin Logan noted that this particular fee was set about 8 years ago, and anything
which is brought before the Board has a fee attached, but that there was no ordi-
nance setting the'fee. Harry Whitcutt, Building Official, stated that there is no
fee charged on an appeal to the Board of Appeals. Mayor Harrison said he would
like to have council consider lowering the $25 fee to $10. Councilman Gellert
said he agreed, and made a motion to that effect, but Councilwoman Shippen noted
that if there was no -ordinance setting this fee, council action was not necessary.
Councilman Haines commented that it would be interesting to know the facts concern-
ing the note which the Mayor had read, but Mayor Harrison did not know the person
who had wrote it, only that he agreed with the suggestion, and would arbitrarily
lower the fee to the $10.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Pete Juhlin, Hub City Ambulance, stated that his company would like to keep their
ambulance at 542 Bell Street; that they had the permission of the owner and also
to construct a carport. He asked for council authorization for this. Mr. Juhlin
was told -that since the location is zoned commercial and he would be requesting a
building permit from the Building Dept. for the carport, no problem was forseen.
Mr. Juhlin then asked if when they move into Edmonds and when the City Aid Car
rolls, would it be alright for the ambulance to roll with the Aid Car on accidents?
Mayor Harrison answered that he could see nothing to prevent them from doing this.
However, Mr. Juhlin stated that they had not done this in the past unless called.
Councilman Haines suggested taking this request under advisement in order for
.Mayor and Council to consult with the city Police and Fire Departments before
386
•
giving an answer. The Mayor replied that there was'nothing to prevent the ambulance
from rolling. Councilman Gellert also felt that perhaps this matter should be dis-
cussed further because the Police and Fire Departments block off areas to private
vehicles in cases of emergency. Mr. Juhlin inquired about his ambulance license
and if it was due on January 1, and he was advised to discuss last year's fee with
the City Clerk.
A.L. Kincaid, president of the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, stated that he was
bringing before Mayor and Council presentation of an idea he believed to be very
much'in line with the moving ahead and general rejuvenation of downtown Edmonds:
This inspiration was for a fountain at 5th and Main, with the intersection squared
off with brick in a warm tone and the fountain located in the middle. This foun-
tain, as shown on a drawing by Jack McLellan, would be 12 feet across the base,
12 feet from top to the base, and the pool height would be 30 inches, with a 30
inch width for the bronze sculpture itself, over which the water would flow. The
sculpture would be composed of bronze "Creatures of the Sea". Mr. Kincaid intro-
duced Howard Duell, artist, sculptor, and teacher at the Community College; and
Ed Ballew of Sculptor's -Workshop, who would work together to create the sculpture
in accordance with Jack McLellan's drawing. Mr. Kincaid admitted that not every-
one favors the fountain, but 80% of the surrounding merchants and property owners
are in favor of it, and it will create no sight deterrant, therefore there were no
particular problems with the Fire and Police Chiefs nor with the City in regard to
underground facilities, etc. Councilman Nordquist asked about proposed night
lighting for safety purposes, and Mr. Kincaid said that there would be indirect
lighting around the periphery focused on the sculpture and waterfall. He noted
the inclusion of automatic electric eye for the lighting; the pump, float, and
strainer; and that the engineering would be provided by Reid, Middleton & Asso-
ciates, Inc. The cost was quoted as being $10,000 built in entirety, exclusive
of the brick in the intersection, which could probably be put in for $2,000 or
•
less. Mr. Kincaid stated that he would propose that the council consider the
City's absorbing through labor and materials, not to exceed 50% of the cost, or
a maximum of $5,000. The remainder would be obtained through community contribu-
tions. When completed and functioning, this fountain would be turned over to the
City of Edmonds Park Dept. Mr. Kincaid added that Mr. Duell and Mr. Ballew would
be charging a little less than $7500 for the sculpture. Councilman Haines said
council had seen fit to put money in the budget for beautification, and following
some discussion, Councilman Haines moved, seconded by Councilman Nordquist to pur-
sue the establishment of a fountain as presented at 5th and Main, and direct the
City Administration to see if the engineering is feasible and budget money avail-
able for this. Councilman Nordquist suggested adding the $5000 participation and
other comments, but seconded the motion without these additions. The motion then
carried unanimously.
Mr. Kincaid then showed council another drawing - a 'Welcome to Edmonds" sign
hanging from a crossarm attached to a post set in pilings.. He estimated the cost
of a sign such as this to be $150 to $200, and suggested 'one. at the ferry dock
area and one off Fifth at the swale near the access. He mentioned having dis-
cussed this with the State Highway engineer, who seemed to find it acceptable.
There followed discussion on this subject. Councilman Nordquist then stated that
in -honor of Councilwoman Shippen's wedding anniversary tonight, he would like to
move to accept the idea of the "Welcome to Edmonds" signs and proceed within the
bounds of city regulations. Councilwoman Shippen seconded the motion, and it
carried unanimously.
Mr. Kincaid then suggested that someone from the city regularly attend the monthly
meeting of the Chamber Board of Directors, and that they meet the third Thursday
at noon for lunch. •
CORRESPONDENCE
The City Clerk read a notice dated December 18, 1972 from Mayor Harve Harrison, and
addressed to Mrs. Irene V. Moran, City Clerk and Members of the City Council,
wherein he stated: "I hereby veto the Budget as I feel it is extravagant."
Councilman Nordquist asked if action could be taken, but Mayor Harrison said he
was placing this item last on tonight's agenda.
HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #392
Hearing was held on Planning Commission Resolution #392, recommending approval
of a proposed amendment to the official street map, establishing a future street
along the bottom of Shell Valley from Main at 86th P1. W. southward to a future
street previously adopted. This is Planning Commission File ST77-71.
City Planner Merlin Logan gave an explanation of the particulars involving this
future street, noting the preference of Route A by the Staff and the Commission's
adoption of the suggestion, with Route A preferred, on Exhibit B. Councilman
Tuson asked if Route A were adopted, would the people be willing to donate the
property for R/W? Mr. Logan answered that the people. have not been asked at this
point. Hearing was then opened.
Attorney Gaylord Riach, representing Mr. & Mrs. Smith, property owners in the Valley
whose land would be greatly affected by the proposed street, spoke against the
possible adoption by council of Route A. He noted that when you promote a street,
•
•
3871
1
11
0
you in turn promote traffic, development, etc., and he advised that it would be
better to leave Shell Valley unopened and the street as it is presently shown to
stop now on Exhibit A. Mr. Riach also mentioned that Dr. Suchert, another property
owner, did not want this proposed street to go through and definitely would not
donate the property. Mr. Riach stated that the reason previously used in turning
down a proposed plat in the Valley was because of dangerous exit, and the street
before council tonight was also dangerous. He felt that Route B would give a much
safer exit and entrance to Main Street. Mr. Riach stated that the Smith's have
much money invested in their property, and would sell to the City if Route A were
adopted, and he quoted a price of $15,000 for the Smith property, and offered a
contract arrangement, if wanted.
Mayor Harrison asked the City Planner where the initiative came from to extend the
R/W in the Valley beyond the action previously taken by council. City Planner
Logan noted that the council had taken that action and then --had returned it to
the Planning Commission to recommend extension of the proposed future street, and
this Route A was the recommendation. The Mayor'then•said that until some initiative
comes from some peripheral property owners, this perhaps, should not be before the
council. In answer to Councilman Tuson's question of who keeps bringing this to
council, it was determined that no one in particular does this, but it seems to go
from council to Planning Commission and back. Mayor Harrison then said wouldn't
it be well to wait until Mr. Yarno and/or Mr. Larson develop, then they could ask
for Route B, if needed. City Planner Logan said both he and the Engineer would
recommend Route A. City Engineer Leif Larson said the recommended route was not
an ideal situation. Attorney Riach remarked that properties depreciated in value
by city progress, and if council decided on Plan A, he would return for his clients
to ask for consideration of a rezone to multiple use because of increased traffic
making single dwellings unsuitable for the area. He added that the Standard Oil
easement through the Valley is used by horses, bikes, and pedestrians, and is sub-
stantially a park -like facility; and he felt Edmonds would rather not abandon
this plan and advised leaving the future street plan as it now is on Route A. No
one else wished to comment, and the hearing was closed.
Mayor Harrison commented that he felt no action should be taken. Councilman
Nordquist moved -to adopt Plan A, but this motion died for lack of a second. It
was then moved by Councilman Gellert, seconded by Councilwoman Shippen that Plan-
ing Commission Resolution #392 be tabled indefinitely, and the motion carried
with Councilman Nordquist voting against.
SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER M & 0 AGREEMENT
CAO Ron Whaley reported that the committee had met yesterday afternoon and -had
gone over the agreement and some changes had been made. City Attorney Wallace
was to look over the agreement, rework it,'and bring it back. He therefore
recommended postponement of about a month. In answer to Councilwoman Shippen's
question about the M & 0 Agreement, Mr. Whaley explained the maintenance and
operation items that will become a part of the agreement, including insurance
and other considerations, and when ready, will be brought again to council.
Councilman Nordquist made the motion, seconded by Councilman Haines that as a
member of that committee, the Senior Citizen Center M & 0 Agreement be post-
poned for another month. Motion carried.
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT
Director of Parks & Recreation, Rod Garretson, told council of the Recreation
Department's need of the Edmonds Elementary facilities, and mainly the gymnasium. -
He said one classroom would be used for pre-school and one for meetings and club
activities. There was not as yet definite programs to fill the other two class-.
rooms. He noted that the Edmonds Historical Society wants the use of the present
Recreation Building at some future date, so he mould like to get into the school
as soon as possible. Mr. Garretson rioted that City Attorney Murphy saw some
faults in the wording of the lease agreement, but the City could accept it on a
monthly basis and the attorneys for both -the school board and the city could iron
out the wording. He stated that it would be $2600 rental from the present time to
August 1973. Following some further discussion, it was moved by Councilman Tuson,
seconded by Councilwoman Shippen that the City enter into an agreement with the
School Board of District 15 for leasing of the Edmonds Elementary School facilities
and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract. Motion carried.
ACCEPTANCE OF SEMI-FINAL ESTIMATE ON LID #189
City Engineer Leif Larson reported to council that the contractor had finished
work on the sewer project at 85th and 218th, and he asked for council acceptance
in order to begin the 30 day period for the purpose of receiving any claims, liens,
etc. Councilman Tuson questioned the adequacy of the 1500 being held_for restora-
tion work, and also verified that the contractor would be under bond for a one year
period. It was then moved by Councilman Nordquist, seconded by Councilman Haines
to accept the semi-final estimate for contractor's work on LID #189, and the
motion carried.
Councilwoman Shippen asked Engineer Larson about the Pine Ridge revenue bond pro-
ject and when council would be asked to accept that. The Engineer answered that
the project was not finished, but would come to council as soon as it was com-
pleted and ready for acceptance.
0
8
n
LJ
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
A claim for damages from Paul and Naomi B.-Pascal was acknowledged by council and
referred to the City Clerk for processing.
Councilman Tuson.then questioned Rod Garretson about the fence at the Yost pool,
and Mr. Garretson answered that this was under order, with a 10 to 15 day con-
struction time.
CAO REPORT
CAO Ron Whaley requested that hearing dates be set for Planning Commission Reso-
lution #397 recommending the adoption of an ordinance to create a Design Commis-
sion; and hearing dates for final assessment rolls on LID's 186, 189, and 190.
It was therefore moved by Councilman Nordquist, seconded by Councilwoman Shippen
that January 16 be set as the date for hearing on Planning Commission Resolution
#397, and the motion carried.
Councilman Haines moved, seconded by Councilman Nordquist that February 13 be set
as the date for hearing on the final assessment rolls for LID's 186 and 189. This
motiorr- carried.
A motion was made by Councilman Nordquist, seconded by Councilman Haines that
hearing on the final assessment roll for LID 190 be set for February 20, and the
motion carried.
City Engineer Leif Larson reported to council that he would like to request
authorization for the Mayor to sign an easement to the State Highway Dept. in •
regard to construction of the limited access route. He explained that it in-
volved subordination of our easement and that the Deputy City Attorney had read
the document submitted to the City by the Highway Dept. Engineer.'. Larson said in
view of the fact that the Highway Dept. is paying for protection of the utilities
and providing casing and 6 inch water lines, he felt that this easement should be'
signed. Councilman Nordquist moved, seconded by Councilman Haines to authorize
the Mayor to sign the easement to the State Highway Dept. as noted. Motion carried.
Councilman Haines advised council that a meeting had been held today on the pro-
posed inter -local agreement between Snohomish County, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds
and Lynnwood for purposes of funding possible losses on transit runs, and he
suggested that a copy of the proposed agreement be forwarded to the Edmonds City
Attorney so that it could be coordinated with our previous agreement and both be
considered next week at the council meeting. He then moved, seconded by Council-
man Nordquist that the City Attorney coordinate both agreements for consideration
at the next council meeting. Motion carried.
MAYOR'S VETO OF 1973 BUDGET
At this point, Mayor Harrison said he would like to take up the budget veto and
offer his compromise budget for council consideration, which had been gone over
and endorsed by the staff, and Councilman Nelson has also endorsed it. He asked
that council listen to his compromise first before taking any action. It was�.as
follows: He was suggesting creation of new revenue over the Preliminary Budget
as follows: .5 mill property tax - $51,000; Increase in revenue sharing -
$17,000; Increase in the Sales Tax of $15,000; There is a saving in the Dental
Insurance Plan of $2,400; and he was proposing re-establishing a 2% tax on the
Water Utility for $10,800. Councilman Tuson questioned the re-establishing of
this water tax and asked for clarification. The Mayor stated that on his pre-
liminary budget this tax had been zero, and he was now proposing adding 2% on
the Water Utility for $10,800, for a total new revenue of $96,200.
Additional expenditures over the Preliminary Budget he had advocated were: Four
Firemen (above his original recommendation, so he was accepting the council's
eight firemen); Two Patrolmen and one clerk in the Police Dept.; and one person
in either Finance or General Services, making a total expenditure of $42,000;
He was recommending that the Recreation Supervisor position be eliminated from
the E.E.A. and this would then be re-evaluated June 30. To fund these additional
eleven E.E.A. from June 30 to August or November would amount to $25,186; He
noted that the two Street Dept. E.E.A.'s would be eliminated,.because there was
adequate money available to hire part-time help as needed. Other expenditures
were Engineering Transite - $300; A Building Maintenance miscalculation of $700;
Snohomish County Health Planning for $240; ACTION Program, $1000'; Excess Lia-
bility Insurance for $2600; Treatment Plant Landscaping for $4,775; Underground
Wiring Reserve - $40,000; Sidewalk and Trails, $20,000; and City Hall modifica-
tion and Future Space Study for $8,000; making a total of $144,801. He noted
that in regard to the Police and Fire Depts., there would be no loss, since one
Police position would be eliminated from E.E.A. but be absorbed into the depart-
ment. This would leave a Contingency Fund of $75,400.
Mayor Harrison went on to say that this compromise would allow,a cut of 3% in all
Utility Taxes from the present 5% to 2% across the board, and this would save the
consumers $110,000 next year, or $16 per household. He stated that this was a
middle ground and asked council to consider this budget as a compromise.
•
11
1
•
389
•
1
1
•
1
•
1
At this point, Councilman Tuson asked the Attorney a question on the tax money
from the Water, and was advised that the money would go into the General Fund if
not earmarked for a special purpose. Councilman Gellert questioned if the Mayor
would consider the possibility of keeping the existing revenue at its full value
and utilizing the difference for a cover for the swimming pool. He.noted that
in two years there would be enough money, with no special election or costs; that
returns on the questionnaires seemed to say that people were not complaining about
taxes. Mayor Harrison replied that the City should refund excess money back to
the citizens when it is available, and it may never be available again because
of the windfall the City got this year, and the citizens are entitled to it. -
Councilwoman Shippen said she had some doubts that Revenue Sharing is exactly
a "windfall", but rather a replacement from the federal government instead of
some of the funding on grants and for other projects and uses. Councilman
Haines said he agreed with Councilwoman Shippen, and he noted that, for example,
many cities may have to go into secondary sewer treatment, and this money would
be used for that. He questioned the use of the words "new revenue", and was
answered that the revenue had been underestimated before, so this was revenue
we didn't know we had, and the Mayor then asked Finance Director Allen Tuttle
to clarify this point. Mr. Tuttle said they had researced the figures on the
Preliminary Budget, and with the substantial sales tax increase and re-evaluating
all our revenues and amount of cash on hand, they had come up with the increased
figures; that it was not "new" revenue, but revenue not heretofore anticipated.
Councilman Gellert inquired of the Attorney if council"were to over -ride the
Mayor's veto, was there anything in the law to require the Mayor to staff up to
the level as noted by council in the budget passed on the.6th? Attorney Wallace
advised that the answer was no, except in cases involving Civil Service.
Councilman Nordquist said that looking back at the four nights council spent
discussing the budget and going over it department by department; taking the
preliminary budget under consideration, and during the public hearings requesting
input from the departments, the council, and from the Mayor; that he had walked
away from the meeting that Wednesday night feeling that we had a good budget;
that it was a budget that would make the Mayor's administration look very good,
because use have a good administration, and he was pleased with the work that had
gone into this. There has been some question as far as the E.E.A. program is
concerned, but he thought we had resolved that two years ago when we accepted
this program, reluctantly, hoping that from this we could draw some key personnel.
We still are not assured as to the extend of the cutoff date as far as E.E.A. are
concerned; if some of these people ran to the ultimate, we would have a windfall
as far as funds are concerned. He added that we have provided services during
the Mayor's administration which the citizens have been most pleased with. He
said we have.increased our fire services, we have increased our police services,
and we have increased our administrative staff. He thought overall we have an
outstanding committment to the public. He added that he thought the budget,. as
it was voted 6 to 0, is an outstanding budget, and although he could appreciate
the Mayor's compromise, that at this time he would move that council over -ride
the Mayor's veto and reconsider passage of the ordinance. The motion was then'
seconded by Councilwoman Shippen. Councilman Tuson said that before council
voted on this, he wanted to say that he has never been in favor of the idea of
upping the utility taxes to the 5%, and when this was originally done, it was
supposed to be a one-shot deal to pick up the $60,000 when the budget was out of
balance. These taxes, he felt, should have been taken off before, and he still
thought so because they had served their purpose, and when the tax has accom-
plished what it set out to do, it should then be dropped. He wanted his opposition
to the utility tax to be known. Councilman Gellert said the answers on the
questionnaire seemed to show that most people were satisfied, taxwise. Council-
man Haines stated that council had tried to build into the budget some special
things the city needs and would like to do; that we may have a few extra dollars
this year, but let's establish some walkways; let's have some money for beauti-
fication and improving our parkland; this is essentially what we tried to build
into the budget and we should keep those special things in mind. There was call
for the question, and a roll call vote was requested., In favor of the motion
were Councilmembers Gellert, Tuson, Shippen, Nordquist, and Haines. Councilman
Winters voted against. The motion carried by the required five to one vote, to
over -ride the Mayor's veto and reconsider the ordinance, and the 1973 Final
Budget as passed on December 6 stood.
The'meeting was then adjourned at-10:10 P.M.
Irene Varney Morana City Clerk
December 26, 1972
ROLL CALL
Harve H. Harri:so , Mayor
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order by Mayor
Harve Harrison. All council members were present except Nelson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the meeting of December 19 had been posted, mailed and distributed.
There.was a correction noted on page two, paragraph two where it refers to the
• cost of the sculpture. That amount should be $3,7005-.,rather than $7,500. The
minutes were then approved as corrected.