Loading...
19811027 City Council Minutes33 81 - continued October 20, 19 • between'Caspers and Main St. which will state "Stream Outfall - Dump No Waste." A stencil will be used and paint recommended by the City. -.and a grant from .the ,DOE7and;•the EPA° wi l 1' pay -."for _:the_ stenci 1 and paint. She proposed doing. -this in.connection with a study she was doing on salmon spawning problems as.they relate to Shell.Creek. COUNCILMEMBER-ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINING BECAUSE IT IS IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE. There was no further business to.come before the Council., and.the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, C y Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor 1 October 27,. 1981 - Work Meeting The regular meeting of the.Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of. the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the.flag,salute. PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Jack Mitchell, Public Works Superintendent Katherine Allen Jim Adams, City Engineer Mary Goetz Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Bill Kasper Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Ray Gould Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director Larry Naughten Art Housler, Finance Director Jo -Anne Jaech Marlo Foster Police Chief John Nordquist Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Marc G1uth, Student Rep. Felix deMello, Building & Grounds Foreman Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Mark Eames, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA Items (C) and (E) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE,OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items included the following: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of October 20, 1981. (D) Authorization to sell surplus equipment and vehicles. ACKNOWLEDGMENT'OF RECEIPT -OF CLAIM :FOR .DAMAGES FROM DONALD LEE REHFELDT 1_It_e_m_CC7 on Consent Agenda Student Representative Marc Gluth asked why the repair of a rusty inner panel was included in a • claim resulting from a police car.runn.ing into the claimant's car. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated -that ' the insurance company will determine what is a valid claim, and that the Council only acknowledgesreceipt of the claim. Councilmember Gould said the Council hoped that the insurance carrier would -note that item. ..COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED,. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE ITEM (C)"ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE CLAIM.: MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION`TO ADVERTISE FOR PURCHASE OF A T.V. AND SEAL TRUCK -MOUNTED UNIT AND HIGH PRESSURE CLEANING UNIT. [Item (E) on Consent Agenda] Councilmember Gould asked the purpose of the equipment.. Public Works Superintendent Jack Mitchell responded that this is the scan.monitoring unit and it will look down a sewer line to see what the problem is. He was asked if this equipment could be shared, and he responded that it would-be difficult because it has to be used everyday.. COUNCI.LMEMBER.GOULD MOVED; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ, TO APPROVE ITEM (E) ON THE.CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor -Harrison advised that there.is an opening on the MEBT committee, the position vacated by Mike Springer, and.he was appointing Jim Adams to that vacated position. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO CONFIRM..THE MAYOR'S AP..POINTMENT OF JIM,ADAMS TO THE POSITION ON THE MEBT COMMITTEE,VACATED�BY MIKE'SPRINGER.. MOTION.CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLEN.MOVED,.,SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER.KASPER, TO MOVE THE AGENDA ITEM OF THE BID OFFER TO PURCHASE LID 206 AND.207 BONDS TO THE NEXT PLACE,ON.THE AGENDA BECAUSE A GUEST WAS PRESENT TO SPEAK AND.HE HAD TO LEAVE SOON. MOTION CARRIED. 337 October 27, 1981 - continued 1 I. V 1 Councilmember Jaech noted .that there,was.a memorandum.requesting that,the,,item regarding right -of way acquisition at 1020 Puget..Dr. be postponed because -the -property owner is out.of town. COUNCIL - MEMBER ALLEN�MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH..TO SCHEDULE THAT -ITEM FOR NOVEMBER 3, 1981.. MOTION CARRIED. BID OFFER'TO PURCHASE LID.:206 AND 207 BONDS Robert B1eck, President of.Grande & Co., Inc., presented their offer to buy $333,990 City. of Edmonds Consolidated .Local Improvement District 206/207 Bonds, dated November 1, 1981, consisting of noncallable serial bonds -through 1996.and..:cal:lable term bonds from 1996 to 2008. It was noted that those bonds with the highest interest,rate would be called or redeemed.first. The net interest cost will be $451,241.25 and the net effective interest rate will be 14.972% (assuming 12-year average life on term bonds). Mr. Bleck discussed the advantages and disadvantages and Mr. Housler indicated that the offer was competitive,with other bond marketing agents on recent bond issues. He recommended approval. There was a brief discussion, following which 000NCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO ACCEPT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THIS OFFER AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH GRANDE-& CO. INC. Councilmember. Kasper observed that there was no other choice for financing it. He said the City could not finance it until all the bills were in and the.project complete. THE MOTION CARRIED. bISCUSS'ION WITH DOWNTOWN_:PARKING.COMMITTEE AND PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD Jim Morrow reviewed the recommendations his committee.had.:made the last time they°.were before the Council. He said they had.heard from one owner of -.a potential lot, but he was not interested in a lease as he wants to sell the property. The owner of:another possible property currently was out of the country but was expected to return soon. He discussed the Bell St. proposal, noting that it could be funded.totally or.partially with in -lieu parking funds. He asked that additional City staff time be utilized to.research the benefits of a. future Bell St. Square project. Dave.'Larson, a member of..the.PAB, said there would be a public hearing the following evening at the PAB meeting regarding the recommendation to have different parking requirements for the downtown area. He stated that he no longer owns any real estate in downtown Edmonds nor.does he have any interest in any of the businesses there. He supported.the possible development of the Bell St. parking area. He said he did..not.think an LID would ever.be passed for parking in the downtown area. He noted that the location of available parking is the problem, rather than the lack of it, and he did not think an LID would ever be passed for.parking in the downtown area. He did not think the lots in the downtown should,be'developed into parking, but into shops, and he suggested exploring angle parking on Bell St. Laura.Hall, Chairman of the"PAB, said the PAB was.not.yet ready to make a recommendation. Councilmember Naughten stated that he felt the in -lieu parking requirements would.have to be changed, and he agreed with Mr. Larson that it did not make sense to -develop parking sites on development sites.. Councilmember Allen.observed that some of the business people park in front of their own shops and then say they do not have a place for their.customers to park. She wondered what the situation would be on parking requirements per building if it were changed so that street parking were considered as part of the parking available for businesses. Mrs. Paul'Burke, a resident at 4th and Bell, asked if they thought this was where the biggest problem was for parking. She objected A o:the removal of thetriangle park at 5th and Bell in order to provide parking, saying the.beauty of the town would:be removed for the benefit of parking: Mayor, -Harrison.responded that each of the proposed schemes for parking at 5th and Bell would have much more landscaping than what.currently existed. Peggy Harris said she has been in business in Edmonds for many years and parking has always been needed. She had a personal interest in the triangle at 5th and Bell because it was her garden club which landscaped it. She asked if it were developed for parking would people still be able to sit. there and enjoy it as they have in the past. She also asked how many spaces would be gained after.. the remodeling goes in at 5th and Main., and it appeared to her that.none would be gained. Mr. Morrow stated that the biggest problem is parking by owners, managers, and employees, and this plan would.provide a natural: place for them to park, opening spaces around their business places. He said if there is a remodel at 5th and Main and they are liable for 29 spaces, then the occupants of the building will be in business and will have people calling on them,.and if you do not.have parking for all the people who go to that 'second story then their cars are going on the street, and the triangle parking would take a large number of cars off the street. Gladys Tuson, 508 Bell St., asked everyone. if they -would like to have a parking lot in front of their homes. She said they have something differentthere with all of the flowers, and the proposed parking will create noise and problems. She said it is beautiful the way the City has it now, and she noted that since the parking on.the street has been restricted to two hours it is never full. Because Mrs. Tuson had mentioned the beauty of the City this year, Councilmember Nordquist introduced Buildings and Grounds Foreman Felix deMello who, with his crew, had been responsible for the beautiful plantings this year that had caused so much comment. J. Ward Phillips, 522 Dayton St., said that the reasonthere will be - a parking problem - in the downtown business community in the long term is that the majority of downtown Edmonds already.is-built and it is divided into very small lots. He noted that as the buildings get older they will have to be redeveloped and what they are trying to do is come to a.conclusion that a developer can count on as to future policy. He said there is no major problem.now, but it will be an enormous problem in the future. He thought the in -lieu concept to be good if the fee gets up to a level to allow replacing o.f°parking. He felt, as a developer, that there is nothing wrong in asking a developer to pay for aas October 27, 1981 - continued • the parking if he cannot place it on his property. He asked that a policy be set as.to who is. going to pay it. Councilmember Allen suggested to:the PAB that a recommendation from them regarding in -lieu fees would be welcomed by the Council. She also said that she has some real qualms about the fact that one of the suggestions of the Parking Committee was to raze the finance and/or planning buildings when the City is in a space crunch: She noted that there is empty space east of the Planning building and library, even though it is green space. She sugges.ted..looking.at the Senior Center parking lot for which concern had.been expressed, but she said it turned out to be a nice parking lot with much landscaping. She felt that property acquisition probably was not possible with. the current budget. Councilmember Gould thought more specific information was -needed relating to the proposal, and'he asked if the Parking Committee had a lot -in mind that the City should sell or trade, and whether they had prioritized their -goals. Mr. Morrow responded that the idea was to investigate the possibility, the costs, and the means of off-street parking, and they did that and found it impossible'to go the traditional route. How far they could go on specifics he said would depend on the time at their disposal and availability of staff time. With all things considered, he said they felt the Bell St. Square made the best sense of any plan they had come across so'far, and he added that one of the primary reasons that an LID would not work. was that one-third.of the properties in the downtown zone are single family, and if an LID were put through two-thirds of the property owners would be carrying the full cost. He said they felt very strongly that the answer for the short term and the long term was development of the Bell St. property. Peggy Harris said the concept looked.good, with a lot of landscaping and green space -,.but her question was whether the in -lieu parking was fair.. She asked why the parking.at 5th and Bell should be'used for the particular building now.being proposed. • An unidentified lady.said one of the beauties of the downtown is the.combination of business and residential uses. She thought.the landscaping for the proposed parking at 5th and Bell would be in pieces which she said was not.as.good.as having it all together. The discussion with the Downtown Parking Committe and PAB ceased, and the Mayor went onto the next agenda item which was closely related to this. HEARING ON BELL ST. PARKING PROPOSAL Planning Director Mary Lou Block displayed drawings of the present parking at this location, as well as two proposals. There currently.are 19 parallel parking spaces. The first proposal would result in 28 more spaces, for a total of 47. The planting area would be larger than that which currently exists and there would be benches. There would be some smaller, additional landscaped areas also. The second proposal had less interior circulation and would provide 44 spaces instead of 47. Ms. Block said it was recommended that 8-hr. parking be permitted there so that it could be used as employee parking for downtown bus.inesses,.and.she observed that shoppers would not normally walk that far. The design was done with all stalls being standard size. The hearing was opened. Joe Thomas, a resident of a condominium on Bell St., asked what would happen to the library parking when the library moves. He was..concerned about the traffic flow, saying the only way he would be able to get into his underground parking was through the parking lot or the alley, and he could foresee accidents there. He thought the turning radius would be too tight on the east side. He said part of the green area would.be lost (in front of the City offices). Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Lane, was concerned that people be given an opportunity to hear the specifics at a public hearing. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, stated that in -lieu funds can only be used to purchase off-street • parking lots and cannot be used for on -street parking, but if developers are allowed to continue to make in -lieu payments and the funds are used for this kind of parking then they are being provided private parking in the right-of=way. She asked if they accepted.Bell St. as an on -street parking proposal then was an on-street:parking proposal needed --is there an on -street parking problem --and if there is not, then she said the Bell St. triangle is not needed. She said she had supported the in -lieu parking as it was meant to benefit Edmonds aesthetically, but Edmonds never got that and now it was going completely to the other extreme --providing public streets for private parking require- ments. Ward Phillips said he supported her point, but this had to be separated, and the only thing that .should be addressed was the in-lieu.parking regarding the previous agenda item, but it -should not be transferred into this discussion. He said the in -lieu parking concept has been validated but the City is desperately.short the number of dollars needed. Dave Larson said the PAB should'be clear as to its charge. He said they all agree that the in -lieu fee should be increased,.but the.amount was the Council's.charge.. He noted that nobody had sug- gested an amount less than double -the present amount, and if they accepted his recommendation to reduce the downtown requirement then perhaps it should be three times the current amount. This discussion then concluded'with.COUNCILMEMBER.NORDQUIST MOVING,'SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT ON NOVEMBER 10; 1981 THE STAFF REPORT BACK WITH COPIES OF THE IN -LIEU PARKING ORDINANCE FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE IN -LIEU PHILOSOPHY. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PROPOSAL FOR REMODEL OF'PROPERTY AT FIFTH AND_MAIN ST. (MAYO) Planning Director Mary Lou Block.explained that this.was a request from Jacque Mayo to purchase his, parking through the in -lieu parking fund (29 spaces for .a total of $29,000), and the Council had decided to.al:low him.to purchase 15 and to provide 14 and he was now asking for reconsideration. This had beem:posted'as a hearing and the.neighbors'were notified. Dr. Mayo stated that his is an existing building and he.was led.to believe the parking was available' through the in -lieu process. His idea was to enhance the.area and he said he would like to see rI LJ . October 27, 1981 - continued something happen in that intersection even if he is,not.parti-cipating. He requested that if the parking could not -be resolved at this time that his.bui.lding-permit- be extended to give them an opportunity to.get it resolved. He thought some new structures are needed in the City. Councilmember Naughten observed..that-unless Dr.. Mayo,meets the parking requirement-he'cannot improve the building as he wants, and he asked if there really is that much of a parking need downtown. He thought they should try to.find a way to work with people who:are trying to improve the downtown buildings. The hearing was opened. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid,.said the only real pressure comes from the building permit which will expire in December and which allows him to build to 35' in height under the old Code. She noted that thi;s,-appli; 4ti.on..was,ma.de.,De.cember- 3. ',1.0,80,:-and lat,,the.:very beginning Mr. LaFon. (member of the ADB) had stated that he had not seen any in -lieu parking so the applicant should try to obtain some parking. Ms. Shippen stated that Dr. Mayo was thereby.warned at that time. Then, in January 1,981 Mr. LaFon again asked how additional parking would be met, and on March 28, 1981 Mr. LaFon again raised the parking question. She felt Dr. Mayo shouldhave known he was really gambling and it was evident from the beginning that in -lieu parking may not be available. She also noted that under Mr. Larson'.s proposal to reduce the requirements for downtown.parking Dr. Mayo actually would have his parking requirement increased.to 35. She stated that there is no urgency in this and he is not being denied anything; that he will build a_ nonconforming building or he can build a conforming building.. Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Lane., stated that the only thing that -had changed since the last discussion was the Bell St. parking proposal, and the developer came up with the idea that he could satisfy his parking with that proposal. He said the Parking Committee had been working on coming up with more parking in downtown, but i*f the Bell St. triangle is adopted and one developer is allowed to use it for his project then what happens for the next one. Ward Phillips said there is more to it than the technical aspect that he will -fall back to the 25' height limit if he does not do this, and in today's costs it is unfeasible, but that is a different issue. He thought it inappropriate to say to any developer what has been said to this developer, -and the talk has been about some issues regarding the development of the property, but the Icritical aspect is the process. Mr. Phillips said Dr. Mayo had every right to go for all in -lieu parking because the Council set the policy to allow that, and .now he is being criticized. He said all the developer is doing is try.to make the process work and when he gets up and asks for things that is part of the process, and that should be. honored. He noted that the buildings are at the point economically where they must go through the rejuvenation phase, but there is not a sound policy establishing a goal for how everyone wants to see downtown Edmonds head into the future. He noted that interest rates have skyrocketed during the time Dr. Mayo has been trying to.do this, and that' Dr. Mayo had to have an answer.because his application was about to run out. He asked that development of the downtown not be discouraged by confusing the.issue. And he said development is being stymied because of the lack of clear and decisive action by the Council. Councilmember Nordquist took exception to Mr. Phillips' last remark. Joseph Dwyer, 529 Holly, said.the administration should determine who gave Dr..Mayo the answer that he could purchase 29 parking spaces as that was incorrect. He said -the idea of his asking for 29 slots at $1,000-each is totally ridiculous and should not even be considered. Dr. Mayo stated that when he started this project anarchitect and -planner represented him and he was not at the meetings. He said he has been in this community since 1967 and owns a business in Edmonds, and he owns that.building and pays taxes in this town. He did not feel it was his position that he had to challenge what.was going on, and it was his information that there was in -lieu parking. He said he did not know in January how many slots were required. He added that he felt any money he would expend in this town would not be.only for himself but also for the community, and -not • that he is an outsider. Roberta Kasmar, 725 Driftwood Lane, said that Mr. Phillips had stated that the Council has been wishy-washy on this, but the Council made a decision and the developer did not like the decision, and it was her understanding that the developer was appealing the decision. She did not think the Council should be downgraded, and said it was not the Council's fault if the developer did not like their decision. Dr. Mdyo.responded that there was not a firm decision made, that there was a decision and it was asked that he go out and try to find out the cost of providing those parking spaces. Ward Phillips asked if this did not rest specifically with the City Council, then with whom? He found it awkward toaccept,that the Council did not take this on as a,City Council issue. The hearing was then closed. Councilmember Naughten stated that it was not that they did not want to -see the improvement, but the matter of parking requirements, and if the in-lieu.fee.were $3;000 instead of $1,000 would the Council .allow all 29 spots to be paid. He said they have got to use the in-lieu.vehicle or there will not be any development; otherwise, they will have to build new buildings and put parking in the basement. Councilmember Gould observed that there is an ordinance in place and it worked because it focused on the problem, and.the ordinance lets them make a judgment on every case that comes along. In this caso-he said they decided it had to be 14/15,.and he thought the process had not been bad. Councilmember Kasper said the-new:Code decisions are not necessarily made by the Council --it is an administrative thing. He said they are protected by the old Code but not the new Code. He thought this meeting had brought out more:.,of the ramifications..of in -lieu being for -new -buildings or expansion, and he always had thought..i.t was for renovating but..in this case more floors were 7being-added in an area.that has no parking..; He -.agreed with Mr. Ostrom that the only reason the Council was looking at it again was because a new.solution surfaced. COUNCILMEMRER.KASPERMOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE COUNCIL SUSTAIN THEIR PREVIOUS DECISION. Councilmember Gould thought that decision was still right and that it would -be -ludicrous to change it. 340 October 27, 1981 - continued • Councilmember Allen said the Counci1-had asked Dr.- Mayo to come back, and that this was not an appeal., but he,hiad been 'invited to comeback by the Council. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON, THE MOTION, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER, JAECH, NORDQUIST, GOULD, AND GOETZ VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL - MEMBERS ALLEN AND NAUGHTEN VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. A.recess was announced. Following the recess, Councilmember.Nordquist asked what they were to do if it is physically impossible to acquire the necessary parking.- Councilmember Gould responded that on November 10 they will be discussing the in -lieu parking fund and they should incorporate any.changes in policy and philosphy regarding parking in general in -the City. In this case he felt the Council had said they could not represent all the residents of the City and live with putting 29 spaces in the in -lieu fund. In order to do.something different he said they would have to go about -changing the policy and the guidelines, but that is in the future. Councilmember Naughten 'asked if a person would-be allowed to pay in -lieu for an add -on, or make him buy parking lots, and he.noted that in some cases they build on, in others they remodel, or in others they may remodel and add. on. Councilmember Kasper was not convinced that' Dr. Mayo could not buy 14 stalls, and he noted .that he had the property since 1967 and did not have a single stall. '.He stated he would not have to create new parking next to his building, that he could provide it elsewhere in the City and it could be used for employee parking. He noted that,the Council, by their action, had given him credit.for the property he already had but not for the newly created space. Councilmember Allen stated that if there is to be any upgrading of the downtown buildings it will not happen if they get hung up on the in -lieu parking point. Council - member Gould said they should include in their discussion on November 10 the understanding of the handling of the parking situation in the new Community Development Code. REGARDING THE NOVEMBER 10, 1981:AGENDA, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT THE AGENDA BE CLOSED AND THAT UNLESS THE PUBLIC�WORKS/. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING IS NEEDED, IT BE REPLACED BY A BUDGET WORK SESSION AT 6:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ON POLICY FOR TREES.IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Public Works Superintendent Jack Mitchell distributed copies of Resolution 418 which established a policy for tree trimming or Iremoval on public property. Erling Helde, a resident at 3rd and Dayton, asked that the remaining trees by the Public Works building be topped in order to return his view. Councilmember Naughten thought the resolution should say that trees should not..be more than 25' high. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN THEREFORE MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION BY.000NCILMEMBER GOETZ-, THAT RESOLUTION 418 BE AMENDED TO ADD A PARAGRAPH 4 STATING THAT ALL TREES PLANTED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL NOT EXCEED 25' IN HEIGHT. Buildings and Grounds Foreman Felix deMe llo said he did.not know of any trees that would grow only to.25' and that this change would require manpower and money for maintenance. THE MOTION FAILED, WITH COUNCIL - MEMBER NAUGHTEN CASTING THE ONLY YES VOTE. Regarding the Street Tree Plan provided by Mr. deMello, he said they had inventoried the trees in the downtown area and as the town develops and trees are required to be planted, that will be in accordance with the types of trees named in the plan in order to provide compatibility; that is, they will not disturb water lines or crack sidewalks and.will require a minimum amount of space to grow and will grow in any kind of soil. He was complimented on the Street Tree Plan. I 1 • 1 DISCUSSION REGARDING PURSUING ALTERNATIVES TO THE 1.1 MILLION DOLLAR FUNDING FOR THE MEADOWDALE SEWER PROJECT City Engineer Jim Adams stated that the staff had investigated various possible funding alternatives and had applied to substitute the Meadowdale Project for other -requested projects under the HUD Block Grant Program. He recommended.that at this time they continue to seek alternative funding until notification is received that either full funding is received from the DOE under Initiatives • 26 or 39 or that the applications have been denied. If the applications are denied and no alternate funding is identified, it may be necessary to consider scaling down the project. Councilmember- Allen stated that she did not think scaling down the project should even be considered. QUESTIONS ON NOVEMBER 3 AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Kasper said that until negotiations are settled he did not think they should get into the "Wellness in the Workplace" matter. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO REMOVE FROM THE NOVEMBER 3 AGENDA.THE ITEM, "FURTHER DISCUSSION OF WELLNESS IN THE WORKPLACE." MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN VOTING NO. Regarding the Space.Needs Study, Councilmember Nordquist requested that the drawings be available which were displayed at the retreat. COUNCIL Councilmember Nordquist inquired whether.complaints received about Liberty Cable TV are logged. City C1erk*Irene Varney Moran responded that they are not, and.she explained how she tries to help those who do complain, the problem often being a matter of communication. Councilmember Nordquist said he had read in the newspaper that numerous false alarms are being received in the Fire Department. Councilmember Nordquist had received a.call from a -downtown merchant regarding the policy towards local merchants when bidding on City projects. He had responded that they try to do as much as they can within a fair bidding process. City Engineer Jim Adams said they give preference to local business people because it is easier -for them to deal with somebody local. Councilmember Naughten advised that TV Channel 10 will have.loca.1 election returns. • October 27, 1981 - continued A recommendation had been receivedfrom the Finance. Director to eliminate one of the Accountant positions and establish.an.,Accounting Supervisor,position. .This had been discussed at the Personnel Committee.meefing. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED.TO ESTABLISH: -THE ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR POSITION, ACCEPTING THE JOB DESCRIPTION PROVIDED, AND THAT THE REVISED JOB DESCRIPTION FOR'THE ACCOUNTANT POSITION ALSO BE ACCEPTED. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD SECONDED THE MOTION, NOTING THAT THE -ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR POSITION WILL BE.GRADE E-2 AND THE ACCOUNTANT POSITION WILL REMAIN AT GRADE NE-8. MOTION CARRIED. 0 A request had come from the City Engineer to fill a part-time Engineering.Aide position which.has been in the department for several years but was not reflected on.the.organization chart. The Engineering budget had included it under salaries and wages and each time a vacancy occurred the question arose as to whether.it was on the organization chart and was budgeted. The Mayor recommended approvalrof the request. It was.decided to put it in the budget and leave it to .the administration to administer, thereby giving flexibility to use the person as much as needed but keeping it as a part-time position. Council President Allen asked when the PAB will be finished with the Highway 99 Study, and Planning Director Mary Lou Block responded that beginning the first of the year there will be presentations to the Council. Council President Allen announced that the library cornerstone ceremony will be on November 7. Council President Allen announced the AWC Legislative Conference on November 12. Councilmember Goetz advised.that.the Consultant Selection Committee met last Friday and will meet. . again on October 30, at 7:30 a.m., in the Mayor's office.. She provided minutes of the last meeting. Councilmember Goetz noted that a response had been received from Lynnwood regarding the welcome sign. Mayor Harrison will_.contact Mayor Hrdlicka to.discuss it further. Councilmember Kasper requested that the Council not be given so much additional written material on Tuesdays because they do not have time to read it before the Council meeting. There was no further business to -come before the Council, andthe meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. 4_0_� 2g" IRENE VARNEY MORAN,'C' y Clerk. November 3, 1981 v HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor The regular meeting of the.Edmonds City Council was called -to order at 7:45 p.m. -by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers, of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Jo -Anne Jaech Bill Kasper Ray Gould Katherine Allen Larry Naughten Mary Goetz John Nordquist Marc'Gluth, Student Rep.. CONSENT AGENDA Jack Mitchell, Public Works Superintendent Jim Adams, City Engineer Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Art Housler, Finance Director Marlo Foster, Police Chief Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Jim Jessel, Parks and .Recreation Director Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Mark Eames, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk Items'(F), (H), and (I) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER.GOULD..MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, 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-October 27, 1981,.as amended.. The Clerk had provided an amendment 'to page 2, the second paragraph, having to do -with the rescheduling of :the item regarding the right-of-way acquisition at 1020 Puget.`Dr. in that there had been a roll call vote on the motion which was not shown. It should have stated: A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH,.KASPER, ALLEN, GOULD, AND NAUGHTEN VOTING YES, AND WITH-COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST AND GOETZ VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. (C) Setting date of November 17, 1981 for hearing on appeal from PAB recommendation,to deny rezone. (R-7-81 -.William Johnson) (D) Setting date of November 17, 1981 for hearing on change to an approved PRD. (PRD-4-77.- 'Parkside West) • (E) Adoption of Ordinance 2244 to permit buses on 76th Ave. W.