Loading...
19840821 City Council MinutesAugust 21, 1984 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Steve Dahl, Student Rep. Jim Adams, City Engineer • Jo -Anne Jaech Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Steve Dwyer - Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Laura Hall Dan Prinz, Police Chief Bill Kasper Jack Weinz, Fire Chief John Nordquist Dale Schroeder, Traffic Engineer Lloyd Ostrom Duane Bowman, Assistant City Planner Jack Wilson Bobby Mills, Actg. Pub. Wks. Supt. Jim Jessel, Property Manager John Wallace, City Attorney Scott Snyder, City Attorney Mona Hargraves, Recorder CONSENT AGENDA Item (B) was removed from the Consent Agenda by Councilmember Hall. Items (H) and (M) were removed from the Consent Agenda by Councilmember Jaech. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll Call (C) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed from Donald W. and Mary S. Robertson (D) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed from Mariana Sintay 454, August 21, 1984 - continued (E) Adoption of Ordinance :2454 Amending Regulation of Pawnbroker/Secondhand Dealer Licenses as to Zones in which Such Uses are Permitted. (F) Adoption of Ordinance 2455 Amending Regulation of Residential Parking Permits as to Limited Parking Zone for which -Permits are.Valid. (G) Adoption of Ordinance 2456 Imposing Jail Terms on Certain Nontraffic: Offenses. (I) Set date of September 4, 1984, for hearing on proposed 30-lot Preliminary Subdivision between 172nd St. S.W., and Meadowdale Beach Road, west of 72nd Avenue W. (P-4-84/Old National Bank Financial Services). (J) Set date of September 4, 1984, for hearing on Appeal of Hearing Examiner Denial of Variance for Reduced Side Yard'Setbacks at.8324 198th St. S.W. (Appellant:Ben Hammond) (K) Acknowledgement'of Receipt of Claim for Damages forfCharles S. Green ($37.19). (L) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed from Duane and Debra Herzig. MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 1984 (Item (B) of Consent Agenda) Councilmember Hall referred.to page 6 of the Minutes, the second from the last paragraph, and said she would like her first statement included, which was that she did not feel that $3,000 should be spent on the assessment center procedure. COUNCILMEMBER HALL THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE ITEM (B) ON THE CONSLNT'AGENDA, AS AMENDED., MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO ACCEPT EASEMENT FROM PUD #1 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BALLINGER SEWER PROJECT Item H on Consent Agenda Councilmember Jaech explained that she removed Item (H) from the Consent Agenda because she had received a letter concerning this item and wanted to ask the City Attorney whether or not there was anything in the letter that needed to be addressed. City Attorney Snyder noted that he wanted to make the point that the letter was sent some time ago about the PUD easement form, and that the form is not well suited to dealing with another public body. He observed that the form is very restrictive, with a lot of provisions in it that one. might expect to find in an easement form, but that are not suitable for the City of Edmonds' purposes. He indicated that he had discussed the matter with Jim Adams, City Engineer, who felt that the urgency of proceeding with the sewage project made it worthwhile to accept the form. However, the City Attorney.added, in his opinion the easement was not a particularly good one. Councilmember Jaech asked if the problems that might arise from use of the form were problems that the City could live with. The City Attorney referred the matter to Mr. Adams, City Engineer, observing that the problem was more of an administrative problem. City Engineer Adams responded that the City now has a system that must be addressed. It was a question of accepting a not -too -good easement form, or having an over -burdened sewer system running in the streets. Mr. Adams felt it was wiser to address the sewage problem at this.time, and argue the easement form at a later date. The City Attorney noted that the City should keep in mind.that a slightly different form from what the City normally grants in easements might be appropriate. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ACCEPT THE EASEMENT. FROM PUD #1. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN EARNEST MONEY AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF CHASE LAKE TOPSOIL PROPERTY. Item M of Consent Agenda Purchase of the property is subject to the City obtaining permits sufficient to allow the construction of various municipal facilities on the RS 8400-zoned property, reported Jim Jessel, Property Manager. Councilmember Jaech felt that it was necessary to address the question to make a determination as to what the property was likely to be used for. Jim Jessel noted that the land was suitable for several uses, but if the property could not be used for what the City wants, then it would not be purchased. The councilmembers discussed the various uses to which the property might be put, including a mini -park and storage facilities. Councilmember Jaech felt that.the expenditure of $110,000 should be carefully explored; it was her feeling -that the City had no clear plans for use of the property at present, and the expenditure of $110,000 for property with no explicit use con- templated at present concerned her. Councilmember Ostrom expressed his primary concern with the kind of soil that was there. He wanted to know what problems, if any, could be expected from the soil composition, and the cost of sinking pilings. He expressed concern with construction problems that might arise. Jim Jessel stated that he would provide a full report on the capacity of the property. Councilmember Kasper felt that the City should take the option, or not take the option, at this time. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE EARNEST MONEY AGREEMENT. A ROLL -CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS DWYER, HALL, KASPER, NORDQUIST AND WILSON VOTING 'YES'; COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH AND OSTROM VOTED 'NO'. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON REQUEST FOR SIGNAL CHANGE AT PUGET DRIVE AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Dale Schroeder, Traffic Engineer, reported to the Councilmembers that the Olympic .View Drive/Puget Drive intersection has been considered as a prime candidate for signalization.in the past. A temporary signal. was installed in 1980 using spare parts from the Department of Transportation; it was installed on a fixed -time operation mode. The City of Edmonds applied for, and received, approval to install a permanent signal at this location. In 1982, the signal was warranted, Mr. Schroeder said, based on pedestrian volume from nearby Olympic Elementary School, and by the fact that i-t_was a truck route conflicting with pedestrian traffic. The Edmonds School District closed 1 1 • 1 45�_� August 21, 1984 - continued Olympic School in 1982, and the City Council passed an ordinance limiting loads to 5 tons on Puget Drive. These actions eliminated the factors which warranted a signal. The Engineering Department reviewed the intersection to determine if current conditions warrant changing the flashing signal to a full -cycling, fixed -time operation. Traffic accident incidence was investi- gated, with four accidents being recorded over a four-year period. Traffic counts were taken for one week, from July 25 through July 31; the count was 9,670, which is a high enough volume to warrant installation of a signal, Mr. Schroeder said.. He recommended that the City continue the operation of the signal as it is at present, in the flashing mode. He felt that the intersection operates satisfactorily as it is, and noted that there is not a long wait for traffic coming down Olympic View Drive; there are not enough accidents to warrant turning on the signal, and even though the volume meets the requirements for a signal, it is still marginal. Mr. Schroeder recom- mended that the intersection be included in the six -year program, as there may be a need in the future for a permanent signal, but not at the present time. Councilmember Hall said that she had received a call from a resident of the area who told her that Olympic View Drive was turning into a "speedway", and Councilmember Hall felt that a signal might slow the traffic down. The resi- dent.also told Councilmember Hall that the intersection was obscured by trees and shrubbery for left-turning.vehicles. Traffic Engineer Schroeder replied that if there was -a hazard at the intersection because of the shrubbery and trees, it hasn't shown up..on investigation reports about the intersection. Councilmember Hall also noted that some residents complained to her about difficulties in getting in and out of their driveways. Mr. Schroeder said that some traffic im- provements were planned for the area which he believes will have an ameliorating effect on accessibility. • The meeting was opened to the public. Jane Cunningham, 1030 Grandview, told the councilmembers that she is finding it harder to get from Grandview to Olympic View,,or if she wants to go east on Puget Drive and up the I1 . She felt that visibility.and speed were both contributory problems; there are light poles, telephone poles and a signpost which obstructs the view to the west, she told the members. She suggested that the pushbuttons, which have been on the light since it was installed, and are not operative, should either be activated or removed, since they are confusing to persons unfa-miliar with the area. Mrs. Cunningham indicated that she favored activating the signal. H. D. Propst, 802 Driftwood Lane, noted teat there were problems with the signal,.but he believed .that the biggest problem was'that.pedestrian buttons were•not activated to allow the children to go back and forth. He also felt that there should be a flashing sign, reading: "Dangerous Intersection"- Maximum Speed 25 Miles Per Hour'.. lie felt those two measures would alleviate the existing conditions. Mr. Propst was opposed to the full stop -and -go mode of traffic control; he observed that the slightest snowfall aggravated conditions under that system. He felt that there would be more problems'with a full stop -and -go signal, than there presently are with the signal in a flashing mode. He suggested police surveil"lance to catch speeders, adding that the $80,000 to $90,000 which would be a necessary expenditure for a fully -activated signal could just as well be spent for police monitoring of the intersection. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the meeting returned to the Council. Jim Adams, City Engineer, recommended that the flash -mode be retained. lie reported that the Uniform Traffic Control Manual of the State of Washingtton states that STOP signals .should never be used for speed control. He said that the Engineering departmen twill look into the matter of installing a walkway signal. He repeated that the signal operating in a "flash -mode is better than being in a fixed -time mode, which would stop the flow of traffic whether or.not there were vehicles approaching from the other direction, and this would be a traffic impediment. Councilmember Ostrom . observed that. he felt the testimony.from residents clearly articulated the problem. However, he recalled when there was a fully activated signal there, and it was not successful. It almost completely stopped the normal" flow of traffic. He wondered if the situation should not be studied more, and a traffic simulation plan worked out. Councilmember Hall reminded members that school would be starting soon, and asked if the flashing light suggested by Mr. Propst could not be in- stalled before school started. City.Engineer Adams replied that their department had looked at several other intersections recently which are more in need of scrutiny and remedy than this one, and before this intersection is moved to the top of the list, the others should be carefully con- sidered for installation of traffic control. He also noted, in response to a question from Councilmember Kasper, that the State regulates the speed limits of State highways, and this is a State highway; the City requested a speed limit of 25 miles per hour from the State, and the State: countered with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour to be adopted. He recommended adopting the suggestion of Mr. Propst, that concerning the "Dangerous Intersection" sign. He also indicated that he would study the matter in conjunction with the traffic engineer for a remedy. COUNCILMEMBER KASPE, MOVED, SECONDED BY STEVE DWYER, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND TRAFFIC ENGINIEER INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL BY THE OCTOBER 9 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMPIENDATION REG,5,RDING NEW REGLLATIONS FOR HOME DAY CARE OPERATIONS: Duane Bowman, Assistant City Planner, recounted the history of this agenda item. The Planning Board -held two public hearings on proposed ,code'amendments regarding home day-care facilities on June 27 and July 11, 1984. The.proposed regulations would allow family home day care, or mini - day care operations', as conditional uses ih RS and RM zones. 'The `proposed.Code amendments would also establish new review'criteria'and "use defini.ti:ons. Mr.`Uawman' indicated treat the -,Planning Board repommended'adoption of tze proposed Code amendments: :The 'Code amendrilienfl include the "" 456 August 21, 1984 - continued • addition of a Paragraph 'D' to.16.20.040, Site Development Exceptions, Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit', which adds (1) Family day-care homes, and (2) Mini -day-care facilities excluding such use if in conjunction with a multiple -family dwelling unit. Chapter 21.20.010 of. Chapter 21.20, Day Care Facilities, -would clearly define the type of day-care facility that could exist in the City. The councilmembers were provided with a draft of the proposed definitions. Chapter 20.19 is a proposed new chapter, entitled "Home Day Care", which will establish criteria to review proposals for day care. Under 20.19.010,''Review', Mr. Bowman stated that the review of applications for family home day-care under the procedures of Section 20.95.060 will use the criteria of Chapter 20.19. The Review section provides that the Community Development Director or the Hearing Examiner may impose conditions on an approval to ensure that the criteria are met. The Criteria, as set forth in Section.20.19.020, are (1) State Licensing; (2) Outdoor Play Times; (3) Fenced Play Area; and (4) Parking. This section also includes 20.19.030, "Permit", which states that applicants who have been granted a conditional use permit shall immediately obtain a business license. All permits for family home day-care, or mini -day-care facilities are.personal to the applicant and may not be transferred or otherwise assigned to any other person, nor may the permit be transferred to any site other than the site described in the application. Mr. Bowman indicated that he felt the several issues generated by this on -going controversy have been addressed in these amendments and/or new sections of the Code. The hearing was then opened for public comment. Ray Harrison, 21626 78th Avenue West, called the councilmembers' attention to the fact that he was concerned with one particular day-care center, and that if 50% of the residents within 300 feet of a day-care center, in opposition to a day-care center, could prevent it; that was fine with him. Andrea Cornwall, 6207 211th St. S.W., told the members that she was President of the Washington State Child Care Association. She congratulated the City of Edmonds on the time and energy expended in resolution of this issue, which has been vigorously opposed and debated for a long period of time. She called the members' attention to the fact that family child care must, by State regulation, be located in a residential area; she also stated that statistics showed that the vast majority of parents want their children in a day-care center, as opposed to an institution setting. Of equal concern to many parents is quality care. Mrs. Cornwall noted that the best way to provide quality care is to provide support services to those people who -are providing child care. She stated that whenever roadblocks are placed in the path of the person contemplating child care, either by regulation or by other means, that makes it more difficult to offer support service to that child care facility. Finally, she told the members; the parents want the child as close to its own neighborhood as possible. She stressed that, speaking as a resident of Snohomish County, she would like to keep as many children here as possible, and day-care centers are an inducement. Warren Bohon, 21606 79th Avenue West, reiterated his objection to the day-care centers where parking is a problem on short cul-de-sacs. He claimed that parking and congestion are concomitant problems to a day-care facility in residenti.al areas. He noted that recently a utility trailer and camper box had been brought into .the area.of a day-care center. In addition to parking problems, he felt that day-care centers should not be allowed to operate 24 hours a day. Mr. Bohon felt that protection of residential property from detrimental impact was not being afforded in the case of day- care centers. Permitting -day-care in residential areas allows people to -move into an area and destroy the character and liveability for others residing there, he claimed. He did not question the need for day-care, but felt that destruction of liveability rights of persons who have lived in an area for years ought to be weighed in the same balance with the need for day care. Mayor Naughten called Mr. Bohon's attention.to the proposed new amendments, under which the day-care facility would be subjected to a conditional use permit control;.if, under this conditional use permit, a facility was found to substantially affect the liveability of an area, and sufficient residents voiced opposition, the day-care center would have.to conform. He told Mr. Bohon that if the situation were found to be unsatisfactory to residents, a petition could be signed containing the requisite number of signatures to have the permit revoked. Mr. Bohon replied that residents should have the opportunity to have a permit revoked before it is approved, and noted that one center in particular had been operating for a year. Mayor Naughten remarked that if a facility met the criteria of the ordinance., it had to be approved; if they meet the criteria, he pointed out, they receive a conditional use permit. If there is a violation of the conditional use permit, as set forth in the ordinance, then it can be revoked. Mr. Bohon called the Mayor's attention to one portion of the Code which he interpreted as stating that the center should not be detrimental to the surrounding area. Mayor Naughten responded that "detrimental" would have to be defined in order to relate it to this matter. He stated that if the center is bothering the residents in the neighborhood; and if over 50% of the residents within the prescribed area sign the petition, then the City would look into the matter and possibly pull the conditional use permit. Councilmember Ostrom inquired of the Mayor if the conditional use permit was applied for,and approved,,is there not an,appeal process available to people before that permit goes into effect? Mary Lou B1'ock replied in the affirmative; there is an appeal procedure. When the conditional use oermit hearinq is originally heard, there is an opportunity.for testimony., from persons who have objections, as well.;as.from;persons who have comments in favor., Mr. Bohon noted that presently,the ;ordinance,,pall,s for posting -of such -.hearing within l80 feet, rather than 300 feet, as -he understands the'new ordinance calls -for. The persons most affected would be those residing within 80 feet of the -proposed facility. He noted further that those opposing day-care centers have sensed a liberalization of laws which make it possible for new purchasers of property in established residential areas to come in and establish a business and 1 1 I • 1 1 U 4 ® A August 21, 1984 - continued occupation for profit reasons to the detriment of the property owners. .He indicated he believed the City had "caved -in" to the proponents -of day-care centers. He believes there may be exceptions; day care is needed, but over -liberalization is not the answer, he added. Kathy Goforth, 2161.5 79th Avenue, noted that she had been to every meeting of the Planning Board considering these code amendments and wanted to make a point. She said that she had listened to both pro and con arguments, and had tried to keep Goforth Day Care Center out of the controversy by declining to speak at the meetings, but allowing the larger issue of day-care to be addressed, rather than her personal preoccupation. She observed that all the opposition appeared to be directed solely.at Goforth facility and very -little, if any, directed at the many other similar facilities operating in Edmonds. She noted that there has not been any person from any other area in Edmonds, speak against home day-care. Every person speaking in opposition to home day-care has been from one neighborhood, and she does not believe that home day-care in Edmonds should be influenced by one neighborhood. She stated that children belong in a home environment, and more day-care centers are needed; if they can't stay in Edmonds, they will move away, she stated, and she felt there were enough school closures as it is. Mayor Naughten closed the public hearing portion.of the meeting and returned the matter to the Council. Councilmember Dwyer told the members that he believed children deserve.to be in a well -regulated environment, and that the day-care operations are the kind that children should be in. He told the other members that he believed the Planning Board had come up with satisfactory definitions and protections. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER-MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS BE ADOPTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY. Councilmember Kasper indicated that he had wasited to • amend the motion, but was not given the opportunity to do so and had not heard the call for the question. MOTION CARRIED, with Councilmember Kasper voting 'No'. DISCUSSION OF REVISION OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LID 212, SEA VISTA PL., AND AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS. Jim Adams summarized the proposal for the councilmembers. The Resolution of Intention No. 262 was passed by the City.Council on June 28,.1983; this resolution created LID.212 for improving Sea Vista Place. The preliminary cost estimate for this LID was $61,235, which was i:o be equally distributed among the 9 benefited properties, for an estimated assessment of $5,803.88 each.. This estimate wa based upon 1983 construction costs.and did not include any cost for acquisition of property. The right-of-way for the improvement has not been dedicatee! to the City; all but two of the benefited property owners quit -claimed the necessary right-of-way. The other two demanded compensation. The City Attorney negotiated, and has now acquired all necessary right-of-way. The expense of acquisition, coupled with inflation, he noted, he noted, has caused the total cost estimate for the project to increase. Revised cost estimates now total $83,642, or $9,293.56 for each property. All affected property owners were advised, he informed the members, and invited to this meeting to participate. A Revised Preliminary Cost Estimate was presented to the councilmembers for their review. Mr. Adams read a letter received from an affected property owner, Mrs. Wilcox, which he received after his information packet had been submitted to the council and which, therefore, was too late to include. Her letter asked, "In reviewing the revised preliminary cost estimate, can there be an explanation for the $1,000 for engineering staff? Isn't the staff already employed and paid for by the City of Edmonds?" Mr. Adams noted that all costs associated with an LID form a part of the LID, and the Council is to decide where costs are to be a llocated. Mr. Adams then requested authorization from the councilmembers to advertise and call for construction bids for the project. Mayor Naugiiten observed that the recommended action was for the Council to authorize the City Engineer to advertise and call for construction bids for the project. He solicited comment from the other councilmembers. Councilmember Kasper inquired if there was no limit to how much these estimates can increase from • the time they are commenced to when they are completed. He observed that this has been a battle from the beginning; and that it seemed to be common with LIDs. In addition to being a lengthy process, the costs keep going up. Mr. Adams indicated that much staff time has been required because of acquisition problems on this LID; interest has accumulated, and all of this contributes to the price increase. If costs increase more than 10%, Mr. Adams said, he brings the matter to the attention of councilmembers to abandon, if they choose. COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE COUNCIL PROCEED WITH THIS LID AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT ON EDMO NDS MAIN STREET PROGRAM FUNDING AND REQUEST FOR CITY PARTICIPATION Hary Lou Block, Planning Director, reported to the councilmembers that she had received a letter from Jim Morrow, Chairman of the Main Street Committee, requesting time to address the Council concerning the proposed funding plan for the gain Street project and hiring of a project manager, and the City's commitment to a share of the funding. The City of Edmonds, she said, would be one of the first five cities to participate in the program in the State of Washington. Planning Director Block then introduced Jim Morrow to make his presentation. Mr. Morrow thanked the councilmembers for their consideration and read a letter to Mayor Larry Naughten from the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, which explained the project. The letter requested an allocation of time during the regular meeting for funding of the Main Street Center Program and Project Manager. The Chamber letter stressed that a full --time Project Manager was a prime requirement for selection as one of the first five Main Street Center cities. X brochure was given to each councilmeniber, out- lining the program in Washington and the benefits to be derived. A contribution of $7,500, repre- senting 25% of the maximum needed amount of $30,000 was sought; the downtown business community would be providing $15,000, and the Port of Edmonds $7,500. The Chamber letter reported that they were also making application to the State of Washington Department of Community Development for an additional $10,000 grant through the Local Development Matching Funds Project. As of the time of August 21, 1984 - continued • the meeting, the letter indicated that $17,000-$18,000 had been pledged from the Edmonds business community. Mr. Morrow stated that the main thrust of the Main Street Program was "revitalization through preservation" for effective results. He believes the program to be comprehensive, and that application will enhance downtown Edmonds. Mr. Morrow stated that an analysis had shown that participating cities experience an almost complete return of investment. Councilmember Ostrom asked when it would be known if the City of Edmonds had been chosen as one of the participants. Mr. Morrow responded that would be around October 12. Councilmember Ostrom asked if the pledge itself, rather than outright funding, would be sufficient to insure the consideration of the City of Edmonds in the project, and Mr. Morrow replied affirmatively. He indicated that cash was preferred to in -kind funding. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, THAT THE CITY PLEDGE $7,500 TO THE PROJECT CALLED THE 'MAIN STREET CENTER PROGRAM", TO BE TAKEN FROM THEIR CONTINGENCY FUND. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Dwyer asked how the Project Manager would be hired and fired, if necessary, and who would be responsible for expending of funds. Mr. Morrow replied that the project is to be incor- porated as Main Street Edmonds, Inc., which -will be a non-profit corporation and have a Board of Directors, and the Board of Directors will be responsible for hiring and firing and administering the program. The Project Manager will be an employee of the corporation; the corporation will operate as a directorship, and the Project Manager will not be a po licy-making individual. The Board of Directors will exercise control. There is a job.description, and Mr. Morrow indicated that he would provide councilmembers with a copy of it. In response to a question from Councilmember Dwyer as to an accounting for funding, Mr. Morrow said he saw no reason why an accounting could not be furnished. Planning Director Mary Lou Block said that there may be a representative from the City on the Board of Directors. The meeting was recessed to Executive Session at 9:00 p.m., and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. COUNCIL Mayor Naughten announced that former Councilmember Orland Christensen had passed away, and extended the sympathy of the Council to the family. Mayor Naughten advised the Council that he had appointed Art Housler as Administrative Services Director, and requested confirmation by the Council. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY'COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO'CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper said that it had come to his attention that salaries were being moved up inside the range. Mayor Naughten advised that there was no salary change or classification change involved in this position. Councilmember-Hall inquired if the position had been advertised, and Mayor Naughten responded that this was merely a reassignment of duties, not a newly -created position. It had been reviewed by the legal department and, when the position of Finance Director was repealed, those duties were merged with this position. Mayor Naughten invited all to the "Triple-Thon" events scheduled on the waterfront Sunday, August 26. He also called members' attention to the parade scheduled to honor all Olympic athletes and coaches from Edmonds: Saturday, September 8, 1984, will be proclaimed "Olympic Athletes' Day" in Edmonds; the parade will begin at 10:00 a.m. Also on September 8, 1984, at 2:00 p.m., a Historic Site will be dedicated at the corner of Edmonds St. and 3rd Avenue; this is the 100-year old site of the first school in Edmonds. Mayor Naughten called the attention of the Council to a letter received from Superintendent of Edmonds School District 15, Hal Reasby, who requested permission to make a presentation to the various councils in the City. The Council approved an information presentation only, with no recommendations required from the Council. Mayor Naughten presented two applications for liquor licenses to the Council: The Edmonds Cafe, a small family restaurant in the 500 block of 5th Avenue South, requested a license for beer and wine on premise only. The restaurant is located in the downtown business district and should not have any adverse impact on schools or churches. The other request was from Ron Bevan, who owns the 7-11 store on 76th, the Ballinger 7-11. Mayor Naughten informed the members that Mr. Bevan was merely taking over the 7-11 owned by Southland Corporation on Highway 99; Southland Corporation has a liquor license, which was issued six to eight months ago. Mr. Bevan .is merely asking to transfer the license over to his name, and requested a waiver from the 20-day waiting period imposed by the City of Edmonds, Mayor Naughten related. The total process usually takes 45 days from the time the request is received by the City, is forwarded to the State, and then returned to the City, the Mayor said. Mr. Bevan was requesting (1) merely a transfer of an already -approved license; and (2) a waiver of the 20-day period. There was no objection from councilmembers to either of the proposed liquor licenses, or the 20-day waiver period, and Mayor Naughten indicated he would proceed with the.licenses and waiver. The members were provided with a supplemental Budget schedule for their 1985 budget process; Mayor Naughten suggested that members review this supplement well in advance of actual discussions. The Mayor issued an invitation from the Woodinville Chamber of Commerce to all for their Second Annual "Grape Stomp" Festival, which will be held September 15, from 12:00 noon to 3:30 p.m. More information is available upon request. Councilmember Hall advised that the Council had received an invitation to the annual Employee's Picnic, to be held Saturday, August 26. Breakfast will be served from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., and dinner will be served at 4:00 p.m. Tickets are available. Councilmember Hall suggested a modest contribution of $5.00 from each to buy watermelon for the watermelon contest. Councilmember Hall asked the City Clerk if the legal notices of hearings were beinq published prior to. hearings; City Clerk, Jackie Parrett, advised that all legals required to be published were being published. 1 C� 1 n LJ 1 C 4� August 21, 1984'- continued A Public Safety Committee Meeting report was given by Councilmember Hall. She noted that the Police Department has four categories that they would like the members of the Council to consider during budget time: (1) . A clerical position; (2) An update in training methods; (3) Training supplies; and (4) Incentive Program, which should be positive rather than a negative program. Councilmember-Hall reported that the Fire Department also had two requests: (1) An Equipment Fund and (2) A 'B'-Fund. The Finance Director will have to explain the 'B'-Fund, Councilmember Hall noted. She also reported that the Fire Department had several old vehicles in use which required extensive repair to keep going. Councilmember Kasper.mentioned that a $212,000 legal claim had been settled, according to informa- tion he.had received, and he inquired as to the breakdown of contribution from the involved parties. He was advised that Burling -Northern paid one-third; the State of Washington paid one- third; and the City of Edmonds' share was one-third. Councilmember Kasper also brought up the subject of the Seventh Avenue North sidewalk construction. He observed that storm sewers are being installed presently, and if the bed wasn't laid soon, it would have to be dug out and reset to put concrete in later. It appeared to him that a considerable savings would be realized.-. by doing it in conjunction with the storm sewer project. Mayor Naughten dissented, advising Councilmember Kasper that it might set a precedent, and that adjacent property owners would be getting sidewalks without any financial participation. Councilmember Jaech suggested that a diagram be prepared for the next meeting so everyone could see which stretch of sidewalk was being discussed. She requested a cost estimate and related information to put on the Consent Agenda • for the next meeting. That way, all council members would have an opportunity to drive past the area and review its she said. Councilmember Kasper also told members that he wanted the Minutes to reflect why he voted 'No' on the child care ordinance. He felt that if there was going to be a call for the question, it should be very clear. He repeated that he voted 'No' because he had amendments at the time, and had not heard the call for the question. Councilmember Jaech requested information on street repairs. She said she had had a call from a gentleman living on Elm Street down by Woodway, who stated that his street was badly in need of repair and he was afraid that it might wash out this winter. He told Councilmember Jaech that he had spoken with somebody from the City, who told him the only option was to put on sealcoat. He .did not understand what sealcoat was, how long it would last, or what it looks like, he told .Councilmember Jaech. She suggested that perhaps someone from the Engineer's department could take him to an area with a sealcoat application to show him how it will set up, and explain how it functions. Mr. Mills indicated that he had previously spoken.with the gentleman, and would be happy to speak with him again and show him a sealcoat application. Councilmember Jaech advised that she had received a letter from Marion Wilkerson, Friends of the Edmonds Library, who told her that the Annual Book Sale would be held on October 26, 27 and 28. Mr. Wilkerson indicated that this sale was the primary fund raiser for the Friends of the Library each year, and that profits are used to provide additional programs, materials and equipment for the library. He asked if the City Council would.join in making the book sale a success by waiving the fee for the use of the Library Annex for the sale. Councilmember Jaech suggested that there should first be a determination as to whether or not these dates.are available. After a brief discussion, Mayor Naughten said he would look into the matter, adding that the City usually co- sponsored this event. Councilmember Jaech also wanted to read a letter from Mrs. Shirley Nichols, 22616 88th Avenue West, into the record. Mrs. Nichols' letter concerned changes in the Metro bus .stops along Edmonds Way for Route 416. Councilmember Jaech indicated that she had investigated, and that the area Mrs.. Nichols .is concerned with is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds; it is in the County. Councilmember Ostrom reported that he and Councilmember Dwyer would be meeting with Ed Golden regarding the Community Survey during the week of August 27 to 31. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. JAC L E G. PARRETT, City Clerk L r