Loading...
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