19810929 City Council MinutesSeptember 22, 1981 -.continued
3�1
1
i
[-J
Council President Allen reminded everyone of the Council/Staff retreat to be held this weekend,
September 25-26, at Sudden Valley.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive
Session at 8:40 p.m.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Ci lerk
September 29, 1981
v
HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
The regular,meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Pro tem
Katherine Allen in the Council. Chambers of the Edmonds.Ci:vic.-Center. Mayor Harrison.arrived at 7:50 p.m.
and conducted the meeting from that time. All present jo.ined in the flag -salute.
PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT'
Harve Harrison, Mayor
Jim Adams, City Engineer
Bill Kasper
Irene Varney:Moran, City Clerk
Mary Goetz
Mary Lou �1ock, Planning Di. rector
Katherine Allen
Art Housler.,.Finance Director
Ray Gould
Jim Jessel; Parks &Recreation Director
Jo -Anne Jaech
Jack. Weinz, Fire Chief
Larry Naughten
Bob Franklin., Technical Studies Engineer
John Nordquist
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Mark Eames, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
Items (D), (E), and (F) were removed from the Consent.'Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ MOVED; SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved
items on the Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of September 22, 1981.
(C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claim for Damages from Elaine J. Jorgensen in the amount of
$3,000.
(G) Report on bids opened September 23, 1981 for Phase II, LID 208, paving of Sprague St., and
award of bid to C. Martin Trucking in the amount of $31,991.
APPROVAL.OF FINAL 4-LOT PLAT OF WESTWIND ESTATES (P-2-81/HANIA
Item D on Consent Agenda and
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2236 AMENDING OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO REDUCE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
ON PORTION OF 242ND ST. S.W.; WEST OF 78TH PL. W,.FROM 60- TO 40'
Item E on Consent Agen a
Councilmember Jaech questioned whether these two items.should be on the regular agenda to allow audience
participation. Councilmember Allen advised her that when plats are on for preliminary approval they go
on the regular.agenda for any discussion, but not the final approval. The second item had.been heard by
the Hearing Examiner and that was the time for audience input. Hearing Examiner decisions can be appealed
to the City Council, at which time there also would be public input. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED
.BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO APPROVE ITEMS (D) AND (E) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND PASSING ORDINANCE 2236.
MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT ON BIDS.OPENED SEPTEMBER 2, 1981 FOR 1,000 GPM PUMPER FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
Item F on Consent Agenda
Councilmember Naughten asked for clarification of the recommendation. Fire Chief Jack Weinz said he
recommended, after thoroughly reviewing the two bids received, that the bid be accepted from NBC
Fire Engines for the Pierce Fire Apparatus, in the amount of $129,284, not including sales tax. He
had reviewed the exceptions to the specifications taken by both bidders and had analyzed the bids in
a written report provided to the Council. He said he planned to*pay for the chassis from the Council
Contingency Fund. Finance Director Art Housler added that the plan was to use $48,000 from the
Council. Congingency Fund this year to pay for the chassis. He said it takes nine months to manufacture
the body to the
chassis and delivery would be next July or August. He recommended interim financing
from the bank for the balance of $75,000-over
a three.to four year period. Councilmember Goetz
commented that there is a great.need for the fire engine, as it is to replace the 1959 engine for
which.parts are no longer..available. Councilmember.Gou1d noted that there was some feeling that the
1959 truck should be kept as a reserve, but he did not.think they should do that. He thought they
should see what they can get for it and dispose of:it. Chief Weinz responded that since fast discussing
this he had.thought about that
suggestion.and was looking into what they.could.get for it, and he
agreed ,that they probably would be better off to sell it. Councilmember Nordquist.noted that this
should be checked with the -Rating Bureau to see if it was -of -benefit to the City's rating to keep it
as backup
equipment. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE
_ 32 2
September 29, 1981 - continued •
ITEM (F) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE.CHASSIS FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND.
MOTION CARRIED. After the new one.is*received, Chief Weinz will report to -the Council on the dis-
position of the 1959 truck.
AUDIENCE
Hulda Humola, representing FUSE.(Fair Use of Snohomish Energy) asked for support of the Council in
their request to PUD for a senior citizen discount rate. The plan which FUSE favored would freeze
the rate at the pre -August 15 rate of 1.75� per KWH for six months, the total cost being $510,959
which would be charged to other residential customers, and the average discount being $6.02 per
month. She said PUD will have a meeting on October 5 to consider the discount rates, so she asked
for action this evening. Counci-lmember Gould noted that Stan Olsen of PUD was in the audience, so
he asked him what effect this would have on the City. Mr. Olson responded that there would be no
impact on the municipality. He:did not believe the PUD Commission would take action on Oct 5 because
the graduated rate had just been introduced and PUD had not yet reviewed it. It was decided that
the Council would discuss this at a later date. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL -
MEMBER GOETZ, TO PLACE ON THE OCTOBER 6, 1981 AGENDA A DISCUSSION OF THE REQUESTED SUPPORT OF THE
PROPOSED SENIOR CITIZEN GRADUATED DISCOUNT RATE FOR ELECTRICAL*SERVICE. MOTION CARRIED.
John Minear, 1,6020.70th W., stated that the upper Meadowdale area has,not been getting.the City
Newsletter and, although he did not favor the publication of the newsletter, he thought all of the
City should get it if it was going to be published. He was advised that it currently is going out
quarterly, but that his complaint would be investigated.
MAYOR
Mayor Har.rison.had a request from Parks & Recreation Director Jim Jessel to hire Linda Severson for
the balance of 1981.' Mr. Jessel said Ms. Severson has been a CETA employee whose funding was •
expiring. He said she has been.their night building supervisor, clerical typist, and first line of
answering telephones. He asked.to fund her at the CETA scale of $845 per month plus $145 in bene-
fits, until the budget is resolved. He. -did not have money in his budget but said he would like to
use $3,000 from the cash carryover.to 1982. Mayor Harrison recommended approval of the request.
COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Harrison advised that Ogden, Ogden & Murphy, the City's legal firm, had been approached by
-Fire District 1 to hire.them for its l.egal consulting work. He saw no conflict of interest but
asked the Council's opinion. -City Attorney Wayne Tanaka said that i-f a conflict of interest were to
arise, the firm would have to withdraw from both sides. He said the firm did not foresee any problems,
but the City was the client and -should be satisfied. Councilmember Gould observed that it was nice
to know, but he did not think it really was the City's business that the firm would take on this
additional - client. He said the.City should monitor the performance of its attorney and if it is
satisfactory .the firm should be kept, and if it'is not then it should not be kept.
PRESENTATI'ON'BY"CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ON DOWNTOWN PARKING
Planning Advisory Board Chairman Laura.Hall. made some introductory remarks and then introduced Jim
Morrow, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce Parking Committee. Mr.. Morrow introduced the members of
the committee and then called on. Dave Larson to make their presentation. Mr. Larson in previous
years had been involved on former downtown parking committees and is somewhat of a historian on the
subject of downtown parking for the City of Edmonds. He stated as the objective of the Committee
the providing of adequate parking for a viable downtown business area, while at the same time
preserving the small town, pedestrian -oriented atmosphere,.avoiding a "saw -tooth" alternating
building/parking lot profile, and.using a parking requirement that is based on objective standards
that are easy to understand, compute, and administer. He stated that -the downtown business area •
should have a parking requirement separate from the other business areas in Edmonds because over 400
parking spaces are available on the street in that area; because there are a substantial number of
multiple unit residential buildings within easy walking distance of the downtown area, many of which
are occupied by elderly people who'do not drive; and because the pedestrian oriented small shops
benefit from walk-in customers from the banks, restaurants, etc. The recommendation was that the
parking requirement for the downtownbusiness area be one space per 600 sq. ft. of gross. building
area, which is approximately half of the average requirement for all businesses in the downtown area
under the present Code.
Mr. Larson noted that application of Chapter 17.50 of the Community Development Code would lead to
results contrary to the objective stated above in that if the downtown business area is developed to
one story only, over one-half of the land would be required for parking; and development to more
than one story would require proportionately more land to be. used for parking. The effect of this
has not yet become apparent because of.the grandfather clause exempting existing buildings. He also
noted that many of the bases specified for computing parking requirements cannot,be determined in
advance of full occupancy of a property, making computation of parking requirements a highly sub-
jective exercise for buildings built or remodeled in advance of tenant commitments. He also dis-
cussed .the in -lieu parking fee,.saying the present fee is too low. He noted that the ordinance says
it will be reviewed annually by the Council, but it has never been increased. He recommended that
it be at least doubled, but he said he did -not think the amount of the fee should be something on
which the PAB holds hearings. He stated that with good management of such things as employee
parking, better utilization of.available parking can be made.
Following Mr. Larson's report, Mr. Morrow reviewed the report previously submitted by the Parking
Committee., and he also submitted a.proposal for diagonal parking at 5th and Bell St.'in the area of
the triangular island. He proposed that $1,000-$1,500 be allocated from the In -Lieu Parking Fund
for a design to.get the maximum use from this site. He said the Committee also will continue to
work on the possibility of leasing 1'ots and .on the concept of vo.lunteer parking. He requested a
meeting with the Council ata work session to exchange some of these ideas. Lloyd Ostrom, President
s
320
•
September 29, 1981 - continued
of the Edmonds Concerned Citizens Council, asked for.an active program.to.go forward on this project --
a detailed program of timetables and dollars.. COUNCILMEMBER-GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED. BY COUNCIL-
MEMBER-GOETZ, TO SCHEDULE.FOR:'THE OCTOBER 27, 1981 WORK MEETING A DISCUSSION WITH THE DOWNTOWN
PARKING COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. Burt Ketcham, President -of the Edmonds Chamber.of Commerce, at
this time took the opportunity to express thanks for..the decoration of the City with flowers this
summer.. He said visitors to.the Chamber office commented on,them without exception, and the merchants
of the City certainly bene.fitted by the City's being so attractive. He said this parking problem is
the one missing link in thebusiness district. A short recess was announced.
HEARING ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL - MEADOWDALE SEWERS
City Engineer Jim Adams displayed.a map of the area -involved.. He said this.hearing was not to
discuss individual assessments but rather to decide whether the LID is to proceed. The estimated
cost of the total project.was $2,457,360. Of that, the funding of the LID would be $1,265,410, that
of the -storm drain system to be funded by revenue bonds -was $255,000, and the funding of the DOE
grant.'was $936,950. City.Attorney Wayne Tanaka explained the LID process. He stated that once all
r
the costs are known then a final assessment roll will be prepared, and everyone in -the district will
get notice of the final assessment and there will be a.public hearing. There will be an opportunity
at.that time to dispute assessments. The decision for the Council this evening .was not on individual
assessments, but to decide whether'to go forward and order the improvement: They also were to
decide whether to pass the.ordinance with the emergency clause in it, which would,require unanimous
vote of the Councilmembers.present, and if passed with the.emergency clause then no protest could be
filed. The only course of protest then would be to file in Superior Court within 30 days.
Technical Studies Engineer Bob Franklin identified the routes of the interceptordrains, storm
sewers; and sanitary sewers. Charles Macaulay, Real Estate Appraiser and Consultant, then explained
•
how he made the assessment.calculations. He noted;• that the benefit to each parcel is a special
benefit due to the better
economic utilization, intensity of use, and appreciation in the market-
place, shown as a difference in the probable value range with and without the proposed L.ID improve-
-ments. He said'the analysis was made of the base study, the existing zoning which was anticipated
to be.unchanged, the present highest and best use and outlook, the proposed LID improvements, the
probable highest and best use after the LID improvements are constructed, and taking into considera-
tion the relative location and projected intensity of use for each -parcel. Ronald B. Hinsen,.20146
25th N.W., Seattle, asked for details of the method.of assessment, and Mr. Macauley said it was
looked at from the benefit each ownership would receive from the service obtained. The hearing was
then opened.
Donald Bodmer, 208 Central Building, Seattle, represented Burlington Northern.Railroad (Parcel 203)
and said their engineer.had studied the Reid -Middleton Report and responded on.September 3, 1981.
He said Burlington Northern had constructed for its own protection from 1949 to.1956 steel, rail,
and timber bulkheads, and they had experienced no problems --they had no evidence of erosion over the
bulkheads which to their engineer indicated stability on the slopes. He said their construction.was
designed to carry the present..flow of surface water through their right-of-way, and that Burlington
Northern would not allow the City to introduce further water through their existing culverts unless
additional culverts are constructed at City expense but under Burlington Northern supervision. He
said they could see no direct or indirect benefit to their right-of-way within the district boundaries.
D.-L. Brechner, 15908 68th W.., (Parcel 184) thought this had been mishandled from the beginning. He
said his septic system had worked satisfactorily for 27 years without even being pumped. He objected
to the overall project.
John Gough, 6850 36th Ave. N.E.,.Seattle, (Parcel 160) said he had no objection�to the sewer system
but he did object to the way.the assessments were established. He said'he is an engineer who .has
been involved in a -number of utility projects and herealized assessments are always a problem, but
S:
he thought this one was some kind of record of inequality.' He said a utility is a service and you
should pay by the service received, and the cost of the system and the number of hookups received
should establish the assessment. Mr. Macauley was asked why this person's assessment was so much
higher'that those on either side of his property. He responded that the two lots on either side are
improved and enjoy some increment in benefits, having utility both before and after the project, but
the middle lot cannot be improved'until the project is completed --it has limited use until the
improvement,is accomplished and after that it will be unlimited. Mr. Gough still did not see the
rationale of his neighbors paying less than he for the same service.
Hugh Gardner, 15712 71st W., (Parcels 124, 125) thought it was very fair. He thought they could not
have done anything,better in his case, and he said.if they had gone by the zone front foot method or
any other -method he would have been a loser. He had expected his assessment to be twice what -it
was.
Glen Loboudger, 15920 72nd W., (Parcel 92) said the rationale seemed reasonable to him, although he
had a few individual 'As
problems. a shareholder in the LID he thought some of theother assessments
were unfairly low. He asked if the State grant had been cleared yet, and he told it
was had not.
Walt Goryns, 7218 164th Pl. S.W., (Parcel 167) was in favor of the project. He said he.had no
unimproved property and would gain nothing from the project, but he thought the Council would be
remiss in its duty if it did.not.pass this LID.
Roger McCorkle, 8205 208th S.W., (Parcel 60) representing two other property owners besides himself,
said they had.purchased the Childs
property and they had the,highest.assessment for a residential
lot, -but they felt it essential to go along with the project even though they will be paying
a
tremendous cost for it. They believed that because of the high cost of.the .sewer every property
owner should be
'method
given every opportunity'to recoup the costs in whateverfeasible. -He said
they were concerned that,'some..of.the other
property owners.were implying that a lawsuit would be in
order to stop the project. He.said that would be.a.terrible mistake and that the project should
forward. go
•
324
September 29, 1981 - continued •
Ron Hanson, 16111 76th P1. W.., represented the group that.owns Parcel 202 which was the old Laebugten
Wharf and which is in the process of bankruptcy. He said on several occasions they had inquired at
the City regarding this LID but never received any information or any notice. He was in favor of
the project but thought there were some real problems with the benefit formula. He noted that
Burlington Northern was objecting to being on the assessment roll, but his property is farther out
of the district than Burlington Northern as it is on the other side of their tracks. He said they
have a self-contained sewer system and the effluent is hauled away to a'dump site, and because they
haul it away he knows how much they put into the system. He questioned why the square footage for
his property -was not listed and why some properties were assessed on highest and best use and others
were not. He asked what would happen if the State grant was not received. He was generally in
favor of the.project and was not objecting to paying a sizeable sum for hookup, but he was upset
with the lack of notice.
In response to the question about the State grant, Mr. Adams responded that he assumed if it were
not received that the project would not proceed. Mr. Tanaka said .the Council could decide to scrap
the project or go forward and fund it from some other source. He added that they could do part of
it or none of it.
James So lie, 16431 74th P1. W., (Parcel 141) was in favor.of-the project and was glad to see it
proceeding.. He said if it is not done soon it will only cost.more later when they have to have it.
Mrs. Robert Suchert, 540 12th Ave. N., (Parcel 150)'said she felt they were being unfairly penalized.
She was in favor of the sewers, but not.the cost. She compared her parcel to Parcel 9 which she
said has more square footage and a lesser assessment. Mr. Macauley said one of the things they take
into consideration is the physical.characteristics of the property, and Parcel 9 goes into Lund's
Gulch and most of it is not useable.
Bill Alguard, 15915 70th W., (Parcel 190) said the benefit method in his case came out with a fair •
charge to him. He still did not feel that he, personally, needed the utility but said that at least
the benefit method gives him a fair ratio of cost.
Jack Linge, 6970 160th S.W., (Parcel 71) said that from the standpoint of equal distribution of
charges this method had been satisfactory. He said he really does not need the utility but he was
willing to go along with the project on the basis as it was currently submitted. However, he felt
that the costs shown could be greatly altered, and he asked what powers the Council would have to
redistribute the charges. He did not see any basis on which to make any adjustments.
Mr. Tanaka responded that there can be no assurance that the Council will not alter the final
assessment roll. As to allocation- he could not say, noting that if -they lower one person's by a
certain amount everyone else will have to have theirs raised by a certain percentage. He said,
however, that they will not be arbitrary.
Mr. Linge asked that the Council not -allow any rezoning for condominiums or business along the
waterfront, and'he noted that Roger Lowe had'indicated that probably the best way to solve the
problem of.the slide area would be to put in curtain drains and storm sewers and let nature take its
course.
Cliff Lawson, 16221 75th W., (Parcel 161) said there were many errors in the legal descriptions of
the assessments and in the numbers.of pumps. He thought the method of -assessment used was devisive
among neighbors, friends, and acquaintances.
Don Phillips, 7100 156th S.W. ,.(,Parcel 110) said he initially was opposed to the project, but the
assessment would not break him. He was concerned about the difficulty -the City will have with
bonds, and he thought the City should.come up with some alternative financing. He asked that the
City expend every effort to explore the new legislation to provide alternative financing. He
thought if the City would offer a'di.scount to those who pay their assessment immediately that it
could decrease the amount of necessary bonding.
Frank Corr (Parcel 151) said he was satisfied with what had been done so far. No one else wished to
speak, and the hearing was closed.
Mr. Adams said he was certain they had not answered everyone's questions. He said Bob Franklin and
he are the.staff members responsible for this but they are out of the office very much because of
other duties, so he asked that if anyone had any inquiry that they write him a letter and he will
assure that the person gets a reply.. He noted that the decision tonight would not be final, that
this was.the preliminary hearing. Also, regarding Burlington Northern, he said the City contends
that if that property is left the way it is they are in a slide hazard area and if the project takes
the water out of the complex the potential of slide will be reduced, and that is how they will be
benefitted. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE
2237, CREATING LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 210, PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION OF INTENTION 260. Council -
member Nordqui.st said he would vote against the motion because he did not see a declaration of
emergency in the ordinance and Section.5 indicates that 50% of the sanitary sewer costs will come
from State grant monies and does not provide for its coming from anywhere else. He wanted a pro-
vision that funds -would be sought from other places besides.the State.. Mr. Tanaka responded that
the declaration_ of necessity in the ordinance will prohibit protest of the LID, and the declaration
of emergency.comes only from the Health Department. He cautioned that if the ordinance did not pass
unanimously there was the possibility of its being protested out. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE
MOTION, WITH.COUNCILMEMBERS GOETZ,. ALLEN, GOULD, JAECH, AND NAUGHTEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL -
MEMBERS KASPER AND NORDQUIST VOTING NO.. The.ordinance as presented did not pass unanimously, so it
was reconsidered. COUNCILMEMBER•ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ, THAT SECTION 1 BE
DELETED.- MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT
SECTION 5 BE AMENDED TO ADD (ON.THE SIXTH LINE OF PAGE 2).FOLLOWING.THE WORD "MONIES" THE WORDS
"AND/OR OTHER.FUNDS." MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD,
TO ADD TO SECTION 4, ON THE THIRD LINE, THE WORD "PROPORTIONATE". BEFORE THE WORD "BENEFIT." MOTION
CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED (IN ACCORDANCE WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY),
. September 29, 1981 - continued
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN; THAT THE BLANKS.IN SECT I:ON.6.'BE FILLED IN TO STATE: "PAYABLE IN UP
TO 25 EQUAL ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS,"'AND'"PAYABLE ON OR BEFRE 27 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUE."
MOTION.CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, THAT ORDINANCE
2237 BE PASSED WITH THE ABOVE.AMENDMENTS. MOTION..CARRIED, UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER GOULD THEN MOVED:,.,SECONDED BY COUNCI.LMEMBER.NORDQUIST, THAT THE STAFF BE DIRECTED TO
DRAFT'A STATEMENT OF PUBLIC.INTEREST FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS WHICH WILL COVER SUCH ISSUES AS THE
LANDSLIDE PREDOMINANCE,.THE..BUhLDING MORATORIUM PROBLEMS RELATING TO GROUND WATER,.AND THE EFFORTS
OF THE CITY TO ESTABLISH SEWERS AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES:IN THIS AREA, AND THAT THIS BE SENT TO ALL
NECESSARY ORGANIZATIONS.AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED,,. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ, THAT THE CITY OF LYNNNWOOD BE ASKED TO
PAINT'ON THE..OTHER SIDE OF.THEIR "WELCOME TO LYNNWOOD" SIGN ON 76TH, THE WORDS 'WELCOME TO EDMONDS."
MOTION CARRIED,
Councilmember Gould asked,that the City take all the necessary actions to indicate it does want to
apply for a waiver of secondary sewage treatment and..to keep the agencies up-to-date. City Engineer
Jim Adams responded that.another.letter will be sent indicating the City does want to apply.
COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ, THAT THE MAYOR AND STAFF BE REQUESTED TO
PROCEED ON THE POSSIBILITY OF ACQUIRING PROPERTY FOR.THE'SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITY BY WAY OF
CONTRACT AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING NO.
Councilmember Jaech noted :that.there was a letter from Dr. Reasby asking for a representative from
Edmonds to serve on a study. .of the future use and location of the School District's Maintenance/
Transportation Center. Mayor -Harrison said he had asked Councilmember Goetz to serve. However, it
•' was determined at this time that such an appointment may constitute a conflict of interest.
9
1
Councilmember Jaech asked.;the status of the filling of the M.A.A. position. Mayor Harrison responded
that he had met twice withanother candidate, the last meeting only this morning, bu.t that person
has received a better offer. Mayor Harrison said he would be looking into the area of recruiting.
Councilmember Allen said she -thought he was going too slowly and that -the City never intended not
having a full-time director to run' it. Mayor Harrison responded that he was doing his best.
Councilmember Nordquist.suggested that the volunteer chaplains,.Dave Sutton and Ken Gaydos, be
allowed to utilize the medical.insurance provided City employees.. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER..NORDQUIST, THAT THE VOLUNTEER CHAPLAINS_, DAVE SUTTON AND KEN GAYDOS., BE
INCLUDED IN THE CITY'S MEDICAL INSURANCE PROGRAM, AND THAT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR BE REQUESTED TO
EXPLORE THE .FUNDING AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING
NO.
Councilmember Goetz referred to a memorandum from the City. Engineer. regarding SR 524 right-of-way
acquisition at 1020 Puget'Dr. COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT THIS
ITEM -BE PLACED ON THE OCTOBER'13, 1981 AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER.GOETZ, TO REFER TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE THE
QUESTION OF OFFERING A BENEFIT TO LOCAL PEOPLE MAKING BIDS ON CITY PROJECTS. MOTION CARRIED, WITH
COUNCILMEMBER GOULD VOTING NO.
Councilmember Kasper asked,.what.happened to the trees in front.of Public Works on Dayton.St. City
Engineer Jim Adams responded..that-they were a weeping birch and every car that parked under them had
its paint damaged,'so the.trees were removed.
Councilmember Naughten advised that he would not be present on October 6, 1981.
Council. President Allen announced that the intergovernmental officials will be meeting at the Senior
Center on October 8, 1981.
Council President Allen announced.that on October 15, 1981, at the Senior Center, the Pantley
parking proposal will be.presented to the Port and the City.
Council. President*Allen again announced the Cabot Dow.seminar on Management Strategies for Negotia-
tions,to be held October 22-23, 1981, at the Red Lion Inn.
Council President Allen expressed.appreciation to the Staff and, the Council for their participation
in the -retreat, and she thanked Councilmember Nordquist for his letter of thanks.
Council:President Allen noted that nothing had been.done about the sign situation.at Westgate and at
Five Corners. Mayor Harrison indicated that the City Attorney is working on a draft ordinance.
Council President Allen called attention to a seminar October 16-17, 1981, responding to Reaganomics.
There was no .further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN,—CIV Clerk
r ,
HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
0