19840904 City Council MinutesN
1
0
September 4, 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
Larry Naughten, Mayor
Jo -Anne Jaech
Steve Dwyer
Laura Hall
Bill Kasper
John Nordquist
Lloyd Ostrom
Jack Wilson
Steve Dahl, Student Rep.
STAFF PRESENT
Linda McCrystal, Information/Arts Coordinator
Art Housler, Finance Director
Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
Pat LeMay, Personnel Director
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Jim Adams, City Engineer
Bobby Mills, Acting Public Works Superintendent
Jim Jessel, Property Manager
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Shirlie Witzel, Recorder
462.
September 4, 1984 - continued
CONSENT AGENDA
Item.(D) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HALL, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the
Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B)- Authorize Mayor to sign interlocal government agreement to continue participation in the
Snohomish County Block Grant Consortium.
(C) Report on bids opened August 27, 1984 for Aid Car and award to Advanced Emergency Systems
in the amount of $30,631.37.
(E) Adoption of Ordinance 2457 providing for special event video game permits and fees.
(F) Adoption of Ordinance 2458 establishing provisions relating to home day care facilities.
(G) Passage of Resolution 596 commending Olympic Athlete Steve Erickson.
(H) Passage of Resolution 597 commending Olympic Coach Bob Ernst.
(I) Passage of Resolution 598 commending Olympic Athlete Alan Forney.
(J) Passage of Resolution 599 commending Olympic Athlete John Stillings.
(K) Passage of Resolution 600 commending Olympic Athlete Susan Broome.
(L) Passage of Resolution 601 commending Olympic Athlete Robert Shannon.
(M) Approval of funds for sidewalk on 7th Ave. in amount of $5,000.
(N) Final approval of 5-lot subdivision at 7802.173rd St. S.W. (Meadowdale Lane/P-4-81).
REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 24, 1984 FOR DAYTON ST. RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND AWARD TO LOW BIDDER
Item D on Consent Agenda
In reference to the cost for installation of electrical ducts for future underground service,
Councilmember Jaech said installation at the time of construction.would avoid the neceesity to tear
up the street again. She noted that $34,000 will be spent for beautification during this project
and it would be best to install the pipe now. Councilmember Kasper, in past discussions with the
State Highway Dept., the PUD, and former Public Works .Director Fred Herzberg, determined that
underground pipe was not used when Highway 104 was done because, in most cases, less than 50% would
be used at a later date. From that standpoint, Councilmember Kasper noted it would be less ex-
pensive to tear the street up when undergrounding was done. He added that another aspect to
consider is the availability -of alleys on Dayton, Bell and Main St. that could be used for under -
grounding utilities. City Engineer Jim Adams said the conduits, if installed at this time, would be
installed at random and it is probable that more would be installed than would be used. However,
later installation would result in. cuts on the street. Councilmember Jaech said the Council plans
to discuss an undergrounding.policy in the near future. She suggested that, if a decision is
reached requiring undergrounding, it would be less expensive to do so now. Mr. Adams replied that
the cost would be approximately the same; however, a decision to install the conduits now would
delay paving of the street until next spring. He said the award could be delayed until a decision
has been made on an underground policy. Councilmember Hall favored undergrounding but had deter-
mined that installation at this time would not be the best time. In addition, she noted the 'state
of the art' could change by the time undergrounding was needed. Mr. Adams commented that the PUD
had suggested installation of the conduit under the existing lines on the north side of Dayton St.,
under the sidewalk. He said there are some problems in locating surface mounted transformers and it
might be better to try to put the services through the alley. However, he has not had time to
determine the feasibility of that idea.
Councilmember Kasper raised a question concerning the funding of the corner parks. He said funding
should not be from the 112 fund but from the Park Capital Improvement fund. He said it is a misuse
of street funds. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT THE CORNER
PARKS BE FUNDED FROM THE 125 PARK FUND. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TO LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $131,925.25 WITH
FUNDING FROM 125 FUND FOR CORNER PARKS. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG 12TH AVE. N. (ST-1-84)
Planning Director Mary Lou Block reviewed the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner following a
public hearing on May 3, 1984. She recommended that the Council adopt the Hearing Examiner's recom-
mendation. Mayor Naughten opened:the public hearing; however, there was no one wishing to speak and
the hearing was closed. Councilmember Kasper asked if vacation of this right-of-way would leave
adequate street width and be consistent with the remainder of 12th Ave. N. Mr. Adams said the width
would be the same as the remainder of 12th Ave. N., would provide adequate room at Puget Dr. for a
turn radius, and saw no necessity to keep the triangular piece of property. The easement has been
signed but is being held by the property owner until needed. Mr. Adams added that the City will
receive a needed drainage easement in compensation for the vacated right-of-way. COUNCILMEMBER
KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO ADOPT THE HEARING.EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATIONS,
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE AND OBTAIN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY AS CONSIDERATION BEFORE GRANTING THE QUIT -CLAIM DEED. MOTION CARRIED.
1
1
7
I
1
E
4f-) 3
• September 4, 1984 - continued
HEARING ON PROPOSED 30-LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION BETWEEN 172ND ST. S.W. AND. MEADOWDALE BEACH RD.,
WEST OF 72ND.AVE. W. (P-4-84/OLD NATIONAL BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES)
Ms.. Block explained that the proposed subdivision consists of PRD-1-81 and PRD-2-81 which were
proposed by Peter Bilder.and approved by the City Council- This.subdivision would be done con-
currently with the completion of the PRD's to allow applicants to sell sites individually rather
than as units.. She said.the development, site.plan and building .configuration would remain as
approved for the PRD. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the subdivision following a
public hearing on July 19, 1984. The Planning Department recommends adoption of the Hearing Exam-
iner's findings of fact and recommendation to approve P-4-84. In response to questions.from the
Council, Ms. Block said the PRD proposal was to sell only the houses with all land held in common.
The subdivision proposal would allow sale of the house and a small unit of land with all other land
held in common. The general size of the sites would be 2000-4000 square feet. Transparencies of
the proposed development were displayed. Mayor Naughten opened the hearing.
.•
1
1
Pete Bilder, 7406 Meadowdale Beach Rd., reviewed the history and various financial arrangements
involved with the property. He asked that any approval granted be transferable.to future owners.
After losing the property to Old National Bank Financial Services, he has endeavored to obtain
financing to buy the property.back. He believes the original intent to sell only the houses is a
preferable approach and would like to see that plan.pursued. He said the plat was approved in 1982.
He noted that the plans for the PRD were included in the foreclosure on the property.
Lee Dastis, 7202 172nd S..W., said their property.is located on the northwest corner of the proposed
Phase I development. She asked if the order of development will remain the same, Phase I and then
Phase II. Ms. Block replied that a.developer would not be required to develop the property in that
order. In response to a question from Ms. Dastis, Mr. Adams said.entrance to the Phase I develop-
ment would be from 172nd.St. S.W. and egress would.be onto.72nd Ave. W. He explained that 72nd Ave.
W. would be a two-way street past Ms. Dastis' property.
.Lisa Verner, 11415 N. E. 128th St., Kirkland, of Tri.ad Associates, represented Old National
Financial.Services. She said the request before the:Council is in conformance with the PRD's that
were approved in 1981, which.were extended in 1983. Ms. Verner said the proposal will allow sale of
individual lots,.retaining common ownership in the rest of the property. She said Old National
Financial services agreed with the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendations. According to Ms.
Verner, the bank intends to sell the property, not develop it. She noted that all City codes had
been met.and requested the Council, grant preliminary approval for the subdivision. She said the
sequence of development would depend upon who developed the property, but the roads would probably
be developed first. In response to questions from the Council, Ms. Verner said individual lots
cannot be sold until a final subdivision has been approved by the Council. At that point, she said,
there would have to be road improvements, utilities, and other site improvements before any lots
could be sold. She added that Phase I and Phase II could be sold to different developers although
the Bank intention is to sell the property as one parcel. She agreed that small building lots could
be sold after the final subdivision is approved. Ms. Verner noted that whoever purchases the prop-
erty must comply with.the PRD rules. They would be obligated to use the same plans that Mr. Bilder
had presented to the Council. She said the Bank is precluded from selling to individual purchasers
because the final subdivision must be approved before the individual lots can be sold. If the.Bank
were willing to develop the property, it could sell to individual builders but those builders would
have to comply with the PRD. Councilmember Kasper said the Council is concerned because of previous
experience in developments on steep terrain, when the Council screened the builder to determine the
qualifications for building on that type of property. However, after the development was approved,
it was sold to someone with no experience, resulting in a tremendous problem for the City. He said
the same problem could occur in this instance if a consumer bought a lot and was not aware of what
was involved. He said there could be scattered water problems generated over the hillside. He
asked how the City would be protected from that probability. Ms. Block suggested.that the City
might'require that the property be developed by one developer for at least each Phase with the units
being sold after they were constructed. City Attorney Scott Snyder said the condition is typically
handled through bonding to bring about the improvement being discussed and is not usually handled by
.ordinance. Councilmember Hall.said she liked the configuration and appreciated the PRD concept.
However, she pointed out.the steep grade of the .streets. She noted that the Homeowner's Association
in the Emerald Hills_development had asked the City to take over their streets. Ms. Verner said
that is a possibility; at times people do come to.the City and ask that private steets become City
responsibility. If.the City is considering placing a condition on the property that one developer
would complete the PRD, .including construction, before sale to the consumer, Mr. Snyder said the
matter should be tabled until he has an.opportunity to draft something and discuss it with the Bank.
Ms. Verner said plats are recorded and the:conditions of the plat are shown on title reports, which.
would furnish warning to the person buying the lot. Councilmember Kasper objected that the general
public does not have the experience to know what the conditions might mean for them.
Dick Massie, 17229 72nd.Ave. W., asked if access to the 30 new homes through 72nd W. would make that
street an arterial, if all the traffic for the 30 homes would be on 72nd W., if the street improve-
ments would be on Meadowdale Beach Rd or on 72nd,W., and .if the improvements on 72nd W. would run
from 174th to 172nd St — Mr. Mr. Adams replied that 72nd Ave. W. would not be designated as an arterial.
Ms. Verner showed h.im a site plan indicating that 1.8 homes would be accessed from Meadowdale Beach
Rd. Ms. Block explained that.street improvements would be made on 72nd and 172nd'adjacent to the
property. Mr. Adams.noted that 72nd W., which is not an asphalt street, will be maintained by the
City.as are all publi.c:rights=of-way. Mr. Massie expressed his concern about the increased traffic
and lack of improvements on 72nd Ave. W. south of the proposed development.
Harlan Bell, 7023 174th St. S.W., commended Mr. Bilder for the PRD plans. He expressed concern that
denial of the request could result in unorganized and dense development. He said this would be
opposed by current residents. Since no one else wished to speak, Mayor Naughten closed the hearing.
11
464
September 4, 1984 - continued •
Councilmember Kasper asked why the Bank wished to break the property down into individual lots. Ms.
Verner.repl.ied that the Bank believes the property will be more marketable because people wish to
buy the land beneath their units. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO
CONTINUE THIS.MATTER TO SEPTEMBER 19 TO AFFORD THE CITY ATTORNEY AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESEARCH A MEANS
OF AVOIDING SALE OF LOTS TO INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DENIAL OF VARIANCE .FOR REDUCED SIDE.YARD SETBACKS AT 8324 .
198TH ST:°S.W. (APPELLANT: BEN HAMMOND)
Ms. Block read from the report of the Hearing Examiner denying the application for a variance. She
suggested the Council look at two elements that were not considered separately in the report. One
aspect would be the circular structure on one corner of the proposed accessory building, and the
other aspect would be the variance request on the west side of the proposed structure. She noted
there are trees on the property which make the selected site the best location for the structure.
Ms. Block illustrated these points on the overhead projector. Mayor Naughten opened the hearing.
Ben Hammond, 8324 198th St. S.W., read a letter of support from .adjacent neighbors. He maintained
that style'was.not considered by the Hearing Examiner. He said eliminating the circular portion
would result in a basic square shack and,.he reiterated, design should be given as much considera-
tion as anything else. In addition, he said this was the only possible location because of the
cellar and driveway. Councilmember Dwyer asked if there were anything special about Mr. Hammond's
lot in comparison to his neighbors' lots that would force him.to get a variance to build the struc-
ture. Mr. Hammond replied that there were trees and the driveway on the lot. If the structure were
built 7.5 ft. from the lot line, it would be 3 ft.' into the driveway. He said it is necessary to
evenly distribute the weight on the cellar.' In addition, he said any other location would not look
right.. He said he owns a quarter interest in the property and constructed the cellar approximately
3 years ago.. He noted that this may be the result of his own doing; however, a law like the one in
question should be flexible enough to allow people to get out of their problems.
•
Councilmember'Hall commented that she had seen the property, had noticed other structures that might
have required a variance in the past, and saw the beginning of the proposed structure. She noted
that there'is.space available for the structure and believed the driveway could be moved. She
suggested Mr. Hammond design another building that would be aesthetically pleasing as well as
meeting the code. Mr. Hammond said he did not wish to move the driveway or design a different
building. Councilmember Wilson asked if the Hearing Examiner's finding, that there was sufficient
room for the building, would place the proposed structure on the other side of the driveway. Mr.
Hammond said that the Hearing Examiner must have meant moving the building into the driveway, but he
refused to build the structure -on the driveway. Councilmember Kasper asked if the circular portion
could be moved to the north side of the building, narrowing the appearance of the building from the
front. Mr. Hammond said that would destroy the design and would also be impossible to do because of
the design. Since no one else wished to speak, the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Ostrom noted that.the Council would like to do someone a favor by granting the
variance, but the Hearing Examiner's decision was proper and granting the variance would be granting
a special privilege. He recommended that Mr. Hammond design a structure that would fit the site or
move it to another site. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO DENY THE
APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION. MOTION CARRIED:
HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF APPEALS.FEES
Ms. Block.reviewed the history of the subject. The staff recommended establishment of a minimum fee
of $25.00 to cover notification costs and require that appellants cite specific code sections they
believe are or are not being met. Councilmember Hall suggested any public testimony be taken and
the subject be continued to another date to afford the Council an opportunity to hear from the
Hearing Examiner on September 25 in regard to this subject. Mayor Naughten opened the hearing.
Dean Nordquist, 111 Elm St., asked how many appeals are being heard during a year and what percent- •
age of total actions is respresented. Ms. Block replied there had been 20 appeals in 1983 and
estimated -that 13% of the major projects were appealed. She also reviewed the types of actions that
may be appealed. Mr. Nordquist asked if the purpose of the fee were to raise revenue or to hold
down.the number of appeals. He said $25.00 may be a lot of money to someone who would like to
appeal an.action. He suggested that any attempt to avoid frivolous appeals would be better handled
on the basis of the appeal rather than a dollar amount on the appeal. In reference to citing
statutes.in the appeal, Mr. Nordquist said it is difficult to determine which statutes and ordi-
nances apply and would be an additional difficulty for the average person.
Hank Lewis, 21723 97th Ave. W., supported the staff proposal for appeal fees. He said there had
been a significant increase in the number of appeals. He would not want to take away the right of
appeals because there are valid reasons for appeals; however, when the applicant is meeting the
intent of the code and complying with the comprehensive plan of the city, he has rights that should
be protected. He said many people are learning that the appeal process causes delay in a develop-
ment. He would support a fee structure and would hope to eliminate the intentional delay or frivo-
lous appeal, not the valid appeal. Mr. Lewis suggested a fee could be half the original application
fee to a maximum of $200. He suggested that neighbors make application together and share the fee
cost. He said the fee should be refundable if the decision is in favor of the appellant. An appeal
by an applicant should also be subject to a fee. He noted that many of the appeals have been in
connection with sign design..
Anne Linge, 6970 160th St. S.W., expressed concern regarding a fee for an appeal. She noted that
the appeal process is beneficial to people who feel the neighborhood has not been treated fairly.
She observed that the City has a responsibility to serve the public and taxes should cover the
appeal process. She attributed the increase in appeals to the fact that Edmonds is a growing City.
• September 4, 1984 - continued
46)
She believes it would be unfair to charge for an appeal, knowing that it is not always easy for
neighbors to combine resources. Ms. Linge said a requirement to cite statutes may also impose a
hardship on people. She believes a charge would benefit the party who would benefit if the appeal
were not made. The appeals process, she said, is a way to insure a fair conclusion and the private
citizen with a val.id concern would be penalized by a fee. Ms. Linge said some decisions are made
when a concerned person is ill.or away from home and they may feel it should be looked at again. If
a person were unable to attend a hearing at which a project was approved, they would be handicapped
if a filing fee were placed on appeals.
Councilmember Kasper asked.if Ms... Linge believed a specific issue should be reheard if someone were
unable to attend the initial hearing. Ms. Linge saida person should be able to appeal a decision
if they were.not able to attend. She does not believe frivolous people attend City Council meetings
to state a case. She said someone affected by a decision should.be able to appeal if they were
note'. able to attend when the decision was made.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., agreed with Ms. Linge's statement. He said he does not believe
:there are frivolous appeals in the city. He described a mistake that was made i,n connection with a
sign at the Old National Bank, which was subsequently used as a point of reference for another sign
height. Mr. Hertrich noted that the ONB sign presentation before the ADB mentioned the allowed sign
area.,.the proposed.sign area; and the existing sign area. There was mention of the sign being
lighted and a description of the sign. However, there was no mention of the height of the sign.
This was a mistake and should have been appealed but no one noticed and there is now a 20 ft. high
sign. He disagrees with a charge for an appeal when a person finds a mistake i.n a procedure or a
judgement. He said there are many cases where appeals are made because people are concerned with
the character of the City and want to do something about it and they should not be penalized.
Mayor Naughten indicated there was time remaining for one more speaker and asked if anyone wished to
• speak to the other side of the issue.
Jerry Lovell, 8927 192nd St. S.W., said as a surveyor he represents many.property owners on small
subdivisions and short plats. He said there have been appeals of three difference short plats in
the last few months. The.Planning Department decision has. been appealed to the Hearing Examiner and
in one case the Hearing Examiner decision was appealed to the City Council.. The appeal was unani-
mously denied by the. -Council. He said there is a problem with frivolous appeals and supports a
minimum fee.. He said.there seems to be a feeling that the property owner or builder should share in
the cost of.the administrative procedures, which is not fair. He has no objection to the subdivi-
sion fees that are paid by the property owners. He emphasized that those -affected are mainly
property owners who are selling or splitting off one or.two lots. He noted that delays caused by
appeals are very costly, moving a project into a completely different real estate and financial
market. He said the administrative process is to ultimately approve a project without the appeals
that are.brought for no good reason.
Councilmember Kasper asked if Mr. Lovell would agree that criteria are needed and asked his opinion
of what they should include., Mr. Lovell said the criteria should be that a fee would be applicable
to appeal a department level.decision. He added that a concession should be made to the property
owner and taxpayer in Edmonds.
The hearing was closed at this point due to time limitations.
Councilmember Kasper asked that the. Council be furnished with accurate statistics on the number of
appeals, the percentage of actions that are represented, and the percentage of increase in appeals.
He said the Council should have these statistics and have an opportunity to hear from the Hearing
Examiner before making a decision.
Councilmember Ostrom cautioned the staff in preparing the requested statistics. If all appealable
actions are considered, he believes the percentage will be. very low. He stated the only purpose for
imposing.fees:would be to place a roadblock in the -way of citizens who want to question the actions
of the City government. He noted that a large number of appeals during the last year have been
because of the sign code question and said the appeals have aided the Council in clarifying the
problems that existed in application of that code. 'He felt;a fee of $25.00 would be no obstacle to
a developer but might be to an individual. Councilmember Ostrom felt the cost aspect of an appeal
would.not be alleviated by a fee of $25.00. He said there have not been any frivolous appeals and a
fee would be a means of stifling public input. He added that it is not a waste of the Council's
time to listen to any appeal. He saw no reason to continue the discussion to another time, regard-
less of information from the Hearing Examiner and staff, and felt a decision should be reached this
evening.
Councilmember Hall said all the Council members are willing to hear any appeals. She believes the
information from the staff and.Hearing Examiner will be helpful in reaching a decision. The costs
of some appeals are runni.ng upward of $400, which she believes is a concern for the taxpayers of the
City. She agreed that anyone should be allowed to have his say.
Councilmember Dwyer said the term "frivolous appeal" had been used.in the beginning of this
discussion but had been changed to recouping costs and this evening is recouping notification costs.
.He noted that $25.00 will not recoup costs and said the'plan is strictly punitive. He opposed any
fee. He was not convinced that the majority of appeals are not taken by applicants and used the
example of appeals by applicants for the Robin Hood Lanes and Edmonds Theater signs. He said the
result of imposing a fee would be detrimental to:the City. He emphasized that the purpose of the
hearing system it to arr.ive.at the best.decisions possible for the City of Edmonds, not just to.
approve projects. Councilmember Dwyer said imposition of a fee presents the danger of poorer
decisions being made.and, as evidenced by the day care and other recent issues, the end result could
be poorer laws and ordinances. He does not believe that an appeal rate of 1.5 per month is
40
` 66
September 4, 1984 —continued •
overwhelming for the Council or the staff. Often government response to a problem is to charge
money and try to.make the problem go away. He opposes any attempt to charge people to speak before
the Council. He also opposes any continuation of the question.
Councilmember. Kasper acknowledged Councilmember Dwyer's position regarding a fee for an appeal.
However, he said the Council had asked to consider the fee and the criteria, with emphasis on the
criteria, which is his concern. He recalled his earlier question, whether someone who was absent
should be afforded the opportunity to appeal because they were not heard. He noted that anyone may
be heard through a letter or representation by another. He said much stronger criteria is needed as
to what must be contained in an appeal so the Council could hear the appeal even if the appellant
were not present. He said it is important to avoid the delays that have been occurring, which often
resuYt in applicants not being able to exercise options that are expiring after they.have spent all
of the necessary monies to make their applications. He stated that the applicants also have rights.
He believes the information from the Hearing Examiner should be heard and would also like to have
the opportunity to examine the statistics to be furnished by the staff. He said he is not out to
block legitimate appeals, but believes that the reasons for the appeal should be stated in writing.
He suggested the discussion be continued.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO DISCONTINUE DISCUSSION OF IMPOSING A
MONETARY FEE ON APPEALS FROM DECISIONS MADE UNDER THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE CODE. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER.KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL,.TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA FOR
APPEALS TO OCTOBER 9 AND INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF FEES FOR ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS. MOTION
CARRIED.
CLARIFICATION OF INTENT RE ONE PERCENT FOR ARTS AND BUDGET DISCUSSION OF MUNICIPAL ARTS FUND (117)
Information and Arts Coordinator Linda McCrystal reported that the Edmonds Arts Commission considers •
the intent of the public art ordinance should include only capital improvement projects. They
believe regular maintenance, repair, or remodel projects should not be included. She then.used
several examples of what would or.would.not be considered a capital improvement project by the Arts
Commission. Councilmember Nordquist agreed with the interpretation, based upon his participation in
drawing up the ordinance. He said.the Council's intent was to provide support to the arts. He said
upgrading roadsand building sidewalks were not intended to be included. Mr. Adams commented that
the wording of the ordinance includes all projects of the City, although that may not have been the
intent. He noted that the Finance Director must transfer one percent of everything spent into the
public art fund unless the Council makes some change in. the ordinance. Councilmember Kasper com-
mented that he had raised this issue. He feels that a building should have some artistic aspects
such as the statue for the Library. He said the intent of the law was to generate money for the
arts, but not from every .project in the City. He suggested that, when the temporary period expires
for which the hotel tax has been committed, that tax might be used for funding for the arts. City
Attorney Scott Snyder explained that the hotel tax may not be used for that purpose.
In response to a question from Councilmember Wilson, Ms. McCrystal said $10,000 came from the
Meadowdale sewer project this year, which would not have been available if the ordinance were
changed. She described some prospective plans for placement of art within the City. Councilmember
Wilson said the money i-s not being misspent but is being used in a constructive way within the
community. He asked that any revenue that is taken away,from the Art Commission be funded from a
different:source:-: Councilmember Kasper said there are other sources of money and believes the
Council should clear up the intention of the ordinance. Councilmember Wilson agreed that the
ordinance should be clarified and funding for the Art Commission should be dealt with in the budget.
Councilmember Kasper asked to see the statistics in regard to any reduction in funding before action
is taken. Councilmember Nordquist commented that the budget for the arts commission was created by
the project at Meadowdale this year. He ask if that money was budgeted when the project was
approved or when the project was completed. Finance Director Art Housler said the money is given to
the arts fund when the project is initiated. Councilmember Kasper commented that the money is given .
to the arts fund when a project is started and yet the City does not know exactly where it is until
the project is completed. Mr. Adams commented that if road and utility projects are taken out of
consideration for the one percent for the arts, there will not be very much money available in the
next few years. Councilmember Jaech scheduled continued discussion on one percent for the arts and
the municipal arts fund for October 9 and requested that the staff furnish the information that had
been requested.
MEMORIAL STREET TREE FUND.(118
Acting Public Works Superintendent Bobby Mills reviewed the history of the fund. He noted that the
fund is replaced as people purchase the trees for memorials and acts as a revolving fund. He asked
for Council direction in regard to the areas the Council would like to have planted. Councilmember
Hall suggested that the old tree planting map be updated and presented to the Council for their
consideration and suggestions.
CONVENTION/PERFORMING ARTS FUND (120
Councilmember Ostrom described a call he had received concerning the auditorium at the Puget Sound
College of the Bible. He asked if the Convention/Performing Arts Center would consider improving
that.auditorium building since.it is an existing build.ing and is located in Edmonds. Councilmember
Hall replied that the Performing. Arts Center is composed of many jurisdictions and is the South
County center. She noted that the.auditorium in question is not that satisfactory. In addition she
believes the traffic patterns of a Performing Arts Center would have to be investigated very care-
fully and feels there would be a great problem in the area in which the auditorium is located. -
Councilmember Wilson commented that the funding of the Convention/Performing Arts Center should
continue until it becomes self supporting:
Councilmember Nordquist left the room.
40
467
September 4, 1984 - continued
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten asked for confirmation of Kwang H:. Baeck to the Architectural.Design Board., COUNCIL -
MEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON; TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF KWANG H. BAECK TO
POSITION 7 ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE NOVEMBER 5, 1984. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor reminded the Council the HUD.Block Grant applications are due on October 1 and the staff
needs their priority lists this evening. Council President Jaech scheduled discussion of the HUD
Block Grant priority list for September 25.
Mayor Naughten proclaimed Saturday, September 8, 1984, as Olympic Athletes and Coaches Day in
Edmonds and invited all citizens to view the parade at 10:00 a.m.
The Mayor reported that a consultant, Reid Shockey, had been'selected for the Planning Department
projects. Mr. Shockey's resume will be included i.n Council packets for next week.
Mayor Naughten said there will be a dedication at 3rd and Edmonds of the 100 year ol'd site of the
first school in Edmonds. He noted that September 12th is Edmonds Night at the Mariners game.
COUNCIL
Councilmember Kasper asked that the area at 9th and Caspers be completed. He said residents in the
area are tired of waiting the last three years for completion of the project.
Councilmember Ostrom said-Councilmember Nordquist had asked him to determine when the hearing on the
Ballinger Lake access was scheduled. Ms. Block replied that this item is scheduled for October 2nd
• at the same time the other park hearing is planned. Because there is no relation to the other park
issues, Council President Jaech rescheduled the Ballinger Lake access discussion to October 9.
1
Council President Jaech had received a call from Marie, King expressing concern that the property at
Chase Lake was the other site the Shoreline Management Committee had designated as a wildlife pres-
ervation area. Councilmember. Kasper. reassured her that the area is not the same. The area. Ms. King
is concerned about is on the west side of the bridge. Councilmember Wilson suggested that the
school district program.could..be enhanced with the City'.s program if the property is acquired.
Councilmember Hall asked for clarification of action taken and recorded in the January 12, 1981
minutes. She asked if the hiring and reclassification freeze had been lifted. Council President
Jaech commented that there was never an ordinance adopted in.this regard. Councilmember Hall asked
the City Attorney to bring information back to the Council.
The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 9:45 p.m. and adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
JACQUEIINE G. PA RETT, City Clerk