02/23/2010 City CouncilFebruary 23, 2010
At 6:50 p.m. Council President Bernheim announced that the City Council would interview Stohn
Nishino, a candidate for appointment to the Sister City Commission. Councilmembers Bemheim, Orvis,
Fraley - Monillas, Plunkett, Buckshnis, and Wilson were present. Also present were Mayor Haakenson,
Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The interview was held in
the Council Chambers and concluded at 6:55 p.m.
At 7:00 p.m. the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley - Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation. Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Rob English, City Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5 AND 6, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2010.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #117180 THROUGH #117327 DATED FEBRUARY 18,
2010 FOR $287,463.61, AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
CHECKS #49097 THROUGH #49128 FOR THE PAY PERIOD FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 1.5, 2010 FOR $621,015.81.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 1
E. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF STOHN NISHINO TO
POSITION #8 OF THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #6 TO
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF THE EDMONDS
INTERURBAN TRAIL.
G. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 226TH STREET SW WALKWAY
PROJECT.
3. PRESENTATION BY THE EDMONDS FLORETUM GARDEN CLUB ON THE RENOVATION
OF THE GARDEN AT OLD MILL TOWN.
Betty Larman, President, Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, described the history of the Garden Club,
founded in 1922. She displayed the Garden Club's logo depicted on a pin that can be earned by helping
the Garden. Club. She identified the founding members of the Garden Club who decided in 1922 to
beautify Edmonds. At that time, Edmonds had a population of 1,000 and no paved streets. She displayed
several historic items including a 1924 Fruit Garden & Home magazine, explaining in 1924 Edmonds
adopted the dahlia as its official flower. From 1922 until the 1950s, the Garden Club had spring and fall
garden shows as well as a plant sale. She displayed the yearbook that contains annual entries by Garden
Club members. From 1942 to 1945, there were no Garden Club activities as flower gardens were
removed and replaced with vegetable gardens.
From 1953 until 1959 the Garden Club assembled flower baskets using plastic flowers due to the lack of a
watering system. In 1960 the Garden Club began planting flower baskets sponsored by the Chamber of
Commerce. She displayed several photographs of Garden Club activities and awards they received. She
invited the public to donate any awards they had received from the Garden Club in the past. Until the
1980s, the Garden Club did plantings at the Port and hospitals and gave flowers to nursing homes. The
Garden Club plants corners in the City and 150 baskets. Last year the number of baskets was reduced to
75 and she urged the City to provide funds for all 150 baskets. Each basket contains 1.6 plants; they are
typically planted in April. The Garden Club also plants trees and holds raffles, workshops and an annual
plant sale. The Garden Club provides two $1,000 scholarships to agricultural students from the proceeds
of their plant sale.
Members of the Garden Club displayed a quilt created by the Garden Club that they are raffling to
provide funds for the Old Mill Town garden. Tickets were available at the Garden Club booth downtown
every Saturday until the drawing on March 15. She recognized several local businesses that support the
Garden Club.
Old Mill. Town was built in 1972. She displayed a photograph of the Old Mill Town courtyard with the
gazebo prior to demolition. When Old Mill Town was demolished, several plants were saved from the
courtyard that will be replanted in the new courtyard. She envisioned the entire community assisting with
the construction of the structures and planting in the Old Mill Town garden. She displayed plans for Old
Mill Town, advising architect Paul Wu, who designed the structures, and landscape architect Audrey
West, who designed the garden plan, donated their services. She identified the bandstand and matching
shelter, open area, benches and seating areas and path through the garden. A model of the bandstand was
circulated to the Council. She assured the Old Mill. Town garden would be chemical free and sustainable
within a short amount of time.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Garden Club was a 501(c)(3) organization. Ms. Larman advised
the Garden Club would accept any size donations. As a new member, Councilmember Buckshnis
commented she learned at lot and had a great deal of fun at Garden Club meetings. She asked the
difference between the Floretum Garden Club and Edmonds in Bloom. Ms. Larman explained Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 2
in Bloom was started in 1995 by three ladies who visited Europe where there are floral competitions
between cities. That concept did not catch on with other cities and it evolved into an annual competition
between businesses and an annual garden tour.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the P Patch. Ms. Larman responded a location had been
identified in Esperance; the Club is working with Snohomish County to provide water.
Councilmember Plunkett asked when the buildings and landscaping will be complete. Ms. Larman
responded she has been working closely with Parks Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay who hopes to
begin the project in April.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled when the Council purchased the property, the Garden Club offered to
beautify it. Ms. Larman commented it will be beautiful as well as educational; all the plants will be
identified and tagged. She invited everyone to contribute by purchasing raffle tickets.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the report provided to the Finance Committee on February 10
regarding the differences between the October 16, 2009 financial forecast and the January 25, 2010
financial forecast with regard to the Fire District 1 contract. He expressed concern the comments made
by two Councilmembers degraded work done on the Fire District I contract and drew into question the
due diligence by Council including the four sitting members who voted in favor of the contract. Finance
Director Hines explained to the Committee that the numbers in the financial forecast differed because
they were done months apart. When forecasting operational results, it is customary to use the current
aetuals as the basis for the forecast; changes in the actuals have caused the forecast to change. However,
the changes in forecast have nothing to do with the Fire District 1 contract; they would have occurred
without the contract. The changes are the result of varying revenue expectations. The cost for the service
provided to the City by Fire District I remains unchanged as does the revenue from the sale of assets to
Fire District 1. He reminded that approximately $800,000 of the asset sale proceeds was always intended
to be provided to Fire District 1 to cover accrued vacation and sick leave for the transferred personnel.
The Council agreed the remainder of the proceeds would be placed in the General Fund; the financial
forecasts reflect that decision. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis' statement that many citizens
brought up issues with the numbers but no one listened, he suggested she provide Mr. Hines a list of
issues for a response. He requested Council President Bernheim schedule a Council agenda item to
review the list of issues and responses publicly. Unless that occurred, he suggested citizens could deem
the issues meritless.
Fred Bell, Edmonds, Edmonds Historical Society, read a letter provided to the City Council: The
Edmonds Historical Museum was founded in 1973 and through the generosity of the City has been
housed in the Carnegie Library building at 118 5t" Avenue North since its founding. There have been
numerous modifications to the interior to accommodate temporary and permanent exhibits, confirming
their dedication to the mission and objectives of the museum. This year they will celebrate their 100
anniversary and their immediate concern is the necessity of re- pointing the exterior of the museum before
the mortar crumbles and bricks fall out. The membership and the community would greatly appreciate
the Council's effort in allocating the necessary funds to accomplish the re- pointing before further damage
becomes irreparable.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, displayed an example of a recently proposed Planned Residential Development
(PRD). In a PRD, developers are allowed to reduce lot sizes below the zoning and reduce the distance
between homes. In the example she provided, lot sizes were reduced from the 8,000 square feet required
by the zoning to as small as 5,700 square feet. The distance between homes was also reduced. The PRD
ordinance includes a provision that requires a perimeter buffer, open space, landscape or passive
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 3
recreation or normal setbacks are used on perimeter lots. In the example she provided, on the small lots
the setback area comprised the entire backyard. When she pointed out that the perimeter buffer had been
omitted from this PRD, staff and the applicant drew in a perimeter over the setback area and the
backyards. In her example, the perimeter buffer was designated as a landscaped buffer; she questioned
whether sheds, swing sets, dog houses or BBQs were considered landscaping or would homeowners be
forbidden to use their backyards. Use of backyards would be even more problematic if the perimeter
were designated open space as even roof overhangs were not allowed. She provided an aerial photograph
of a PRD approved when she was on the Council where the buffer did not overlay the setback and
homeowners have use of their backyards. She provided proposed language, "setbacks shall not overlay
the permanent buffer area," and requested the Council act on this quickly, perhaps even tonight via a
moratorium on PRD applications until the issue was addressed.
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, explained her comments related to Agenda Item 7. She referred to her October
25, 2005 comments to the City Council asking the Planning Department to obtain assessments by the
Army Corp of Engineers and the State Department of Ecology (DOE) on the wetland on Thuesen's
property in order to avoid an appeal, a lengthy adversarial process involving the time and energy of
private citizens, city government and ultimately the City Council. She explained John Pell assessed the
property and determined it to be an isolated wetland and therefore not subject to federal regulations;
however, the DOE has never been allowed on the Thuesen property to complete an assessment. What
followed was as she predicted, an adversarial, 4r /z year process involving City staff and citizens time and
energy, private citizens' money and an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars. She noted City Attorney
Scott Snyder had been involved in this process from the beginning. The issue remains unresolved and
approval for the short plat application remains preliminary.
She and others have lost confidence in the City Attorney's representation of Edmonds throughout this
process and request the City Council immediately remove him from any further involvement in the
Thuesen -Reidy case and open a full and complete investigation into his role in the short plat application
process. She noted the Settlement Agreement and release of July 20, 2007 negotiated by Mr. Snyder
under substantive terms IH appears to tie the City's hands in enforcing its own Critical Areas Ordinance
regarding the wetland on Thuesen's property. She requested the City Council contact DOE and request a
complete investigation of the issuance of a nationwide permit allowing Thuesen to fill the wetland. John
Pell reversed his earlier determination that the wetland was isolated and issued the NWP based on a
verbal report from the property owner that a storm drain existed in the wetland connecting it to federal
waterways. She pointed out there were no stonn drains in the wetland, no pipes, no documentation of
such on City maps and no documentation of City permits to install storm drains on the Thuesen property.
She requested the City Council instruct City staff to deem Thuesen's short plat application incomplete, an
action that should have been taken when the City learned the Reidy encroachment had not been identified
in any of the LSA surveys submitted to the City in the Thuesen application. She concluded this action
would, 1) stop the use of taxpayer dollars toward this short plat application and 2) require Thuesen to
resubmit his application under the new Critical Areas Ordinance.
Chris Johnson, Edmonds, referred to the Reidy- Thuesen issue, expressing concern that the matter had
been drawn out for five years. He pointed out the City hired City Attorney Scott Snyder as an expert,
however, when he stepped outside his level of expertise, he was no longer an expert such as when he
recommended a temporary construction easement that impacted the Reidys. The result was a waste of a
great deal of taxpayer dollars. He urged the Council to resolve this matter, noting five years was a long
time. He urged the Council to question Mr. Snyder's involvement.
Lora Spehar, Edmonds, representing Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Project and Pilchuck
Audubon Society, referred to Agenda Item 7. She cited the importance of wetlands; they play an essential
part in the regulation of water flow, filter pollutants and fertilizers, provide habitat for plants, insects,
birds and animals. Rather than be abandoned, wetlands should be properly managed like other critical
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 4
areas. Wetlands provide flood control, capture soap, provide erosion control, fill aquifers and other
drinking supplies, and provide vital wildlife habitat. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines
wetlands as lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil
development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface.
Wetlands can remove and store greenhouse gases from the earth's atmosphere, slowing global warming.
She provided the Council a Corp of Engineers' pamphlet regarding wetlands.
Scott Mallory, Edmonds, referred to the wetland and boundary dispute case involving the Thuesen
property. As an adjacent property owner, he observed the City's handling of this case led primarily by the
City Attorney over the past five years without a solid resolution at the expense of several parties and
Edmonds taxpayers. He spoke in favor of accountability, objectivity and transparency with regard to the
way tax dollars are spent. When the dispute first began 2005 with the wetland issue, he was surprised to
find the City non - responsive to federal and state requirements particularly after a significant rewrite of the
City's critical areas code had just been completed. Citizens were required to remind the City of the
requirements after proceeding toward development of the wetland property. He explained this was one
example of the questionable issues that have occurred as part of this property dispute. He recommended
the City Attorney be relieved of this case and the Council set up an independent review that focused on,
1) the accuracy of the critical information used to make decisions over the past five years, and 2)
compliance with procedures including but not limited to coordination with the federal Corp of Engineers
and the State DOE with regard to the wetland size and its hydrological connection with federal and state
waters. Another key issue is the adverse possession on the southern border; he questioned whether the
information obtained during the past five years was accurate and whether procedures were complied with
in determining the fate of the property.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the presentations made at the Council retreat regarding an aquatics
facility and the Senior Center and asked whether those issues would be presented at a Council meeting.
Next, he referred to information he provided in August to which the Council had not responded. He also
commented on zoning on Hwy. 99 for adult entertainment and provided information regarding a case in
Boise, Idaho. With regard to City Attorney Scott Snyder, he has always been responsive to his requests.
��91 via 7hrelatill MY \a907.71Y:1anti/1011wrigur ala1► /_ \►Ceao[upam,
Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the City owns and must maintain 20 buildings:
• Police, Courts, Council Chambers
• Fire Station #17
• Frances Anderson. Center
• Public Works O & M Center
• Meadow Club House
• Old Public Works
• Historical Museum
• Wade James Theatre
• Boys & Girls Club
• City Hall
• Fishing Pier & Ranger's Station
• City Park Maintenance Building
• Library
• Senior Center
• Fire Station #20
• Fire Station #16
• Log Cabin
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 5
• Grandstand
• Cemetery
• Yost Pool
Six year project needs indicate an annual funding shortfall of approximately $200,000 for 2010 -2015.
The funding shortfall was identified in the property tax levy increase proposal in 2009. A stopgap
funding source is needed until a more permanent revenue stream is established. One of the projects
requiring funding is the Edmonds Historical Museum exterior restoration for the 1910 . Carnegie Library
building. Elements of the restoration work include:
• Brickwork grouting and sealing
• Foundation wall repairs
• Parapet and sill repairs
• Front entry stair renovation
Mr. Miller provided several photographs illustrating areas in need of repair on the Edmonds Historic
Museum exterior. He referred to photographs taken two years ago pointing out more deterioration has
occurred in the interim. In 2008, Edmonds conditionally secured a $48,000 grant from the State of
Washington Heritage Capital Project Fund to renovate the exterior of the museum. The grant is based on
a matching 1:2 ratio of state to local funds. The project must be constructed this summer in order to
fulfill the grant requirement ending date of June, 2011. He provided the following funding proposal:
2010
Museum Exterior Repairs +$48,000 State rant)
$100,000
Frances Anderson Center Gym Roof Replacement
$30,000
Fire Station #16 Painting
$5,000
Fire Station #17 Carpet
$12,000
Cemetery Building Gutters
$5,000
Wade James Theater Gutters
$5,000
2011
Frances Anderson Center Radiator Replacement
$75,000
Wade James Theater Roof Replacement
$30,000
2012
Frances Anderson Center Oil Tank Removal
$30,000
Fire Station #20 Interior Painting
$10,000
Total Estimated Expenditure
$302,000
Mr. Miller requested the Council authorize an additional source of funding for Building Maintenance
Fund 116 to preserve and keep City buildings functioning by utilizing $300,000 from the proceeds of the
sale of equipment associated with the City's fire stations to Snohomish County Fire District 1.
Councilmember Buekshnis asked if staff investigated securing a grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation.
The Foundation recently announced grants of $50,000 - $100,000 for 501(c)(3) organizations to fund
projects that benefit education, support civic and community services, arts, culture and the environment.
She suggested the Historical Society could apply for a grant. Mr. Miller stated it was unclear whether the
Historical Society would qualify since they did not own the building. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed
out the Senior Center was applying for a grant and the City owns the Senior Center building.
Councilmember Plunkett observed in order to utilize the $48,000 grant, the City needed to provide an
approximately $100,000 match. Mr. Miller agreed. Councilmember Plunkett noted that amount would
cover all the Museum exterior repairs. Mr. Miller agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 6
Councilmember Wilson asked why the Museum exterior repairs were not included in projected
expenditures, and what higher priorities had been funded instead. Mr. Miller answered the Six Year CIP
includes several essential, life safety building maintenance projects, such as repairs to the cooling system
in the Public Safety Complex, HVAC replacement at Fire Station 16, and replacement of the library fire
alarm system. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there were any other non -life safety capital
improvements that could be delayed to allow the Museum exterior repairs to be funded. Mr. Miller did
not recommend delaying any of those three projects, explaining a building would have to be closed if the
ventilation system failed.
Mayor Haakenson asked the expiration date of the $48,000 State grant. Mr. Miller answered it must be
used by June 2011.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Miller explained identification of matching funds would be necessary
in the next few weeks to allow sufficient time to do design work and bid the project, and to construct the
project this summer when the weather is dry and warm. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there
would be sufficient time to complete the project if funds were identified in two months. Mr. Miller
agreed that would be possible. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Museum exterior repairs would be
on the funding priority list in 2011 or would there be other higher priority projects. Mr. Miller anticipated
there would continue to be projects that would delay the Museum exterior repairs due to the backlog of
critical projects. If the City did not provide matching funds, the City would lose the $48,000 grant.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how often the State of Washington Heritage Capital Project Fund awards
grants. Mr. Miller answered it was done on a biennial basis but was uncertain whether funds would be
available in the future due to the declining State revenue forecasts.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas referred to the list of projects and questioned the urgency of the painting
at Fire Station 16 and carpet at Fire Station 17. Mr. Miller responded that discussion would need to occur
with Fire District 1 if the City did not have adequate funds for those projects. Under the agreement, the
City is required to keep the buildings in a serviceable condition. He summarized the City may be able to
reach an understanding with Fire District 1 to delay those projects.
Council President Bernheim asked why the project must be done this summer if the grant deadline is June
2011. Mr. Miller responded it would be preferable to complete the exterior repairs this summer to ensure
dry, warm weather. Council President Bernheim asked whether the project would be put out for bid. Mr.
Miller answered it would.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation could be used as a match
for the State grant. Mr. Miller answered yes. He stated staff discussed with the Historical Society their
conducting a fundraiser and were told it would be problematic to raise a significant amount of money for
the project. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Hazel Miller Foundation grant was announced
recently and the funds will be granted this year. Mr. Miller explained the Historical Society could apply
but it may be necessary to have funds available for the project prior to when those grants are awarded.
Councilmember Plunkett explained this proposal was presented to the Finance Committee. The
Committee forwarded it to the full Council for consideration without a recommendation.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern that this proposal would consume approximately half the
funds received from Fire District 1. She acknowledged some of the projects needed to be done and
reiterated her suggestion to pursue a grant from the Hazel. Miller Foundation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
ALLOCATE $100,000 TO THE BUILDING FUND FOR THE PURPOSES OF RESTORING THE
HISTORICAL MUSEUM.
Councilmember Wilson relayed his dislike for spending one time revenues such as the sale of the rolling
stock to Fire District 1, to fund ongoing operations. Repairs to City buildings were one time
expenditures; however, because there were so many, they required many years to fund. He suggested the
Council have a discussion about the City's financial future, noting Council President Bernheim has
scheduled a discussion regarding a levy at the March 16 Council meeting. If the Council decided to place
a levy on the ballot and it was successful, it would be easier to support the other projects staff proposed.
He was not prepared to commit to all the projects proposed by staff but found staff made a compelling
case for the Museum repairs. The Museum is a downtown icon that he wanted to preserve. The Council
could address the other building maintenance items after a broader discussion occurs regarding the City's
financial future.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the proposed $100,000 expenditure, noting it was asset for
asset. He was opposed to nibbling away at the funds obtained via the sale of assets.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. REPORT ON THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD'S NAMING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE NEW PARK IN NORTH EDMONDS AT 162ND STREET SW AND 75TH PLACE W.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained via the Park Naming Policy adopted by City
Council in 2009, the Planning Board is charged with recommending park names for new parks developed
in Edmonds. A new park will be opened in north Edmonds this spring at the northwest corner of 162nd
Street SW & 75th Place. W. With the assistance of Parks & Recreation staff, naming proposals were
solicited throughout the City during a five week period last fall and 63 names were submitted for
consideration. A three person Planning Board sub - committee was established to review all of the
proposed names and provide the Planning Board with a short list for their February 10, 2010 Park
Naming public hearing. The recommended name is forwarded to the Council and the Council has the
final authority to amend, accept or reject the name.
Planning Board Member Kevin Clark explained eight citizens expressed their opinion regarding the park
name at the Planning Board's February 10 public hearing. Of the eight, five suggested the name of
Haines Wharf Park or Haines Fishing Pier Park, two recommended naming the park after an individual
citizen, Del Carl, and a third recommended the park be named recognizing its public vista characteristics.
The Planning Board policy and the Park Naming Policy have specific criteria to be considered in the park
naming process.
The Planning Board reviewed the 63 names submitted by the public; 24 nominations referenced Haines
Wharf or Haines Fishing Pier Park, 10 nominations referenced Del Carl and 9 referenced the Puget Sound
views. Haines Wharf or Haines Fishing Pier Park meets nearly all the criteria in the Park Naming Policy;
it recognizes a geographic and descriptive location of the park. This area is known geographically for the
Haines family and the fishing wharf. The Haines Fishing Wharf has an excellent reputation over a
number of years associated with service to the local fishing community and serves as a focal point for the
City. As part of the Edmonds Arts Festival, a local artist created a painting of the property. Haines
Wharf is also the name of a residential subdivision in the immediate area. Jim Haines was involved with
the Edmonds Planning Board, Edmonds City Council, Snohomish County Assessor, the Snohomish
County Council and in the establishment of Stevens Hospital. After deliberation, the Planning Board
recommended the new park be named Haines Wharf Park.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 8
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO NAME THE
PARK HAINES WHARF PARK AND TO HAVE DEL CARL AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS
RECOGNIZED IN ANOTHER MANNER.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out 1 of the 63 park name submissions was to name the park after the late
Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson. He noted there were few times in public life when a person
provided as much public leadership as Ms. Olson did during her final year. He noted two parks had been
opened in the City since 1974, both in the last year. He did not want to rely on a Council 20 -30 years in
the future to name a park after Ms. Olson. He summarized the City was unlikely to have another
opportunity to honor her memory in the near future. In addition to the unique leadership she provided,
Ms. Olson passed away while serving on the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO NAME THE PARK THE PEGGY PRITCHARD
OLSON PARK AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE OTHER NAMES COULD BE APPLIED TO
ELEMENTS WITHIN THE PARK.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board had discussed this name. Mr. Clark
answered there was recognition of that submission. He found it difficult to ignore the amount of public
response to a specific theme /name and the location of the park across the railroad tracks from the Haines
Wharf facility. He suggested naming the garden at Old Mill Town after Ms. Olson.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2 -4), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND FRALEY-
MONILLAS VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT, ORVIS, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mayor Haakenson offered to provide the Council a list of opportunities to name something prominent in
the City after Ms. Olson.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� 7 Y9J�`Y_1I:�111 [�I� Zill�[N I I VA 01 IMMO 7 ADM /h I �Y1� 1lm-=l
Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen would each be allowed 30 minutes to speak. Mr.
Thuesen won a coin toss to determine who would go first. As Mr. Thuesen was out of the room at the
time of the coin toss, Mr. Reidy made his presentation first.
Councilmember Wilson asked for a summary of the City Attorney's advice regarding the Council's
response and engagement on this matter. Council President Bernheim declined, noting that advice was
provided to the Council in Executive Session.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, petitioned the City Council to conduct a full investigation into the situation that
began in his neighborhood in 2004 and continues to cause problems and turmoil today. He hoped the
City Council would be motivated to determine everything that had gone wrong, to take all possible steps
to minimize the chance that this would happen again to innocent citizens in Edmonds.
He explained his property was located along the original northern border of Edmonds. When Edmonds
was incorporated in 1890, George and Etta Brackett dedicated a 71/2 foot wide right -of -way easement for
future use for ingress /egress to the City under the presumption when the City grew to the north, the City
would annex another 71/2 feet providing adequate space for ingress /egress. When the City grew to the
north, that annexation did not include the reservation of another 7%2 feet, leaving the 7%2 foot strip of land
that the City did not open for any public purpose.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 9
He explained the legal difference between open and unopened rights -of -way; when a property owner
owns the underlying fee title to the property burdened by a right -of -way easement that the City has not
opened for public use, the property owner had a legal right to make reasonable use of that property. If the
City decides to open it for public use, at that point the property owner can be asked to clear the property.
This is consistent with constitutional law that promotes the efficient use of land; it would be unfair to
preclude a property owner from using land on which the City has an easement but the City was not using.
Washington State Supreme Court has clearly ruled on this issue.
He referred to a brief included in his exhibits prepared by Keating Bucklin and McCormack, the firm that
employs Stephanie Croll who does WCIA work for the City. The brief, prepared less than two weeks
before the temporary construction easement was approved on March 17, 2009, makes a very strong and
comprehensive argument that unopened public rights -of -way are treated no differently than private
property with regard to public access rights. The fee owner has the right of reasonable use and the City
has no legal duty to clear unopened rights -of -way. City Attorney Scott Snyder has represented on many
occasions that the City had a duty to clear the right -of -way. He agreed the City would have a duty if the
right -of -way had been opened for a public purpose; since it had not, not only did the City not have a duty
to clear it, they could not have cleared it because they would have been in violation of private property
rights of the owner of the underlying fee title. Furthermore, the private property owner has the
responsibility for maintenance of an unopened right -of -way with an easement.
Property owners abutting an unopened right -of -way do not have any legally recognized right to access
their property via that right -of -way; no such legal right is available under the law until the right -of -way is
opened for public purpose. Mr. Snyder's representation that Mr. Thuesen had a legal right to use the
unopened right -of -way on his property was incorrect. No one could have used that property until the City
opened it for public purpose. As a result of this incorrect assumption, a great deal of private and public
resources have been wasted.
On the evening of March 17, 2009 when the City Council passed Ordinance 3729 vacating the unopened
alley right -of -way easement and reserved a temporary construction easement, a new easement against
only his property specifically for Mr. Thuesen's private benefit for temporary construction purposes, Mr.
Thuesen did not possess a right -of -way permit requiring the City to reserve a temporary construction
easement for his private benefit. Mr. Reidy referred to a letter prepared by Rob English dated February
24, 2009 in which he informs Mr. Thuesen that both of his right -of -way permits have expired and that a
new permit would be required prior to any grading or other work within the alley right -of -way area. The
letter also states a licensed contractor is required as part of the issuance of a City right -of -way
construction permit. The letter concluded the Settlement Agreement the City signed with Mr. Thuesen in
July 2007 does not purport to extend the term of any right -of -way permits and does not operate to prevent
their expiration.
Mr. Reidy explained on September 16, 2008 Mr. Snyder introduced the temporary construction easement.
There was no public notice, he did not have the opportunity to research a temporary construction
easement or prepare written or oral comments. Mr. Snyder's recommendation to Council on September
16 differed materially from the Mayor and staff's recommendation to vacate the unopened 71/2 foot strip
of land as proposed. Following that evening, he attempted to inform the Council that he felt the
temporary construction easement was improper and he was virtually ignored. Mr. Snyder eventually
agreed to meet with him but he refused to allow Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Plunkett to
participate in the meeting.
The letter from Mr. English to Mr. Thuesen that documents that Mr. Thuesen had no permits, no
contractor license and that his Settlement Agreement did not prevent the expiration of his permits was
critical information that should have been shared with the Council on March 17, 2009. Mr. Snyder, City
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 10
staff and Mr. Thuesen had the letter but none of them raised the issue that Mr. Thuesen did not have the
necessary permits to use the property. Mr. English's letter was not copied to him (Mr. Reidy) or his
attorney; he found it during his review of public records. He envisioned the outcome of the March 17,
2009 meeting would have been different had he had Mr. English's letter.
With regard to the temporary construction easement, Mr. Reidy pointed out it was clearly not for any
public use but was for Mr. Thuesen's supposed private needs. The last of Mr. Thuesen's permits expired
in January 2008. He pointed out Mr. Snyder did not inform the Council during the September 16, 2009
City Council meeting that Mr. Thuesen did not have permits.
Mr. Snyder had Landau and Associates visit the property to determine whether there was any private need
for a temporary construction easement. In a letter dated August 6, 2009 Mr. Snyder informed Mr.
Thuesen that an independent consultant informed the City that there were other construction methods
available that would allow him to build the wall without the need for a temporary construction easement
and he could proceed with his project using a different construction method. He summarized the Council.
passed Ordinance 3729 under the false impression that Mr. Thuesen had vested rights to an easement that
the record clearly shows he did not. Passage of that ordinance set the stage for a huge waste of public and
private resources.
Once the temporary construction easement was passed, the City immediately ordered him to remove his
shed, permitted and built in 1962, from the temporary construction easement. Staff proceeded despite Mr.
Snyder's representation in a December 23, 2008 letter that a correction notice would be issued after Mr.
Thuesen's civil plans had been approved. Mr. Thuesen's civil plans were not approved until August 13,
2009; however, the City commenced its enforcement efforts two days before Ordinance 3729 was
effective on March 25, 2009. By August 13, 2009 the City would have amended the correction notice
twice, including one order that required him to prepare a work plan to remove his shed, an illegal request
that he protested. Mr. Snyder and Mr. Thuesen's attorney subsequently argued that the work plan he was
required to prepare is evidence that he somehow agreed his shed needed to be removed. He assured that
was not true; the City required him to prepare the work plan violating the principle that a citizen is
innocent until proven guilty. The work plan appears to have been requested to get him to admit a wrong-
doing and requesting it was highly improper. He summarized neither the City nor the Hearing Examiner
has been clear about what he is required to remove.
Between March 17, 2009 and April 1, 2009, he informed Mr. Snyder that the wall related to Mr.
Thuesen's 2 -lot plat ended 17 feet west of his shed and the temporary construction easement area,
identified by Mr. Snyder after the ordinance was passed, it was located next to three of his four 30 -foot
wide lots and not next to the eastern most lot. His shed is 50% on the eastern most lot. The end result
was the temporary construction easement was next to half of his shed. When he notified Mr. Snyder of
these facts, he could have matched the easement area to the approved wall and his shed would no longer
have been an issue with regard to impacting Mr. Thuesen's wall. That reasonable step was ignored and
instead Mr. Snyder put a hold on the enforcement against his building. He issued a new order with two
new setback violations that were not on the original order. In Mr. Snyder's April 1, 2009 letter, he states
the enforcement action would be placed on hold until his adverse possession claim had been resolved.
This representation was also made to Mr. Thuesen by Public Works Director Noel Miller in a letter dated
April 6, 2009.
Mr. Thuesen appealed the vacation ordinance on April 7, 2009, surprising because the right -of -way
vacation met the criteria for vacation and the temporary construction easement had been reserved from
Mr. Thuesen's private benefit. Mr. Thuesen's appeal of the vacation ordinance would become very
significant approximately three months later. Mr. Snyder has said that because he (Mr. Reidy) did not
appeal the vacation ordinance, he must live with the temporary construction easement. The reason he did
not appeal the vacation ordinance was because he relied on Mr. Snyder's representation that the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 11
enforcement effort would be placed on hold until his adverse possession claim was resolved. His reliance
on the credibility of Mr. Snyder's representation would turn out to be misguided.
On December 1, 2009, Mr. Snyder made a presentation regarding this situation to the City Council.
During that presentation, Mr. Snyder informed the Council he was sharing all responses that Mr.
Thuesen's attorney sent him with his (Mr. Reidy's) attorney. That was untrue, in mid -July 2009 while he
was working on his adverse possession case, Mr. Snyder emailed Mr. Thuesen's attorney to request an
update on the status of the vacation appeal. Three days later Mr. Thuesen's attorney responded with a
framework for resolution in which Mr. Thuesen offered to drop his appeal of the alley right -of -way
vacation if the Reidy's shed and trees were removed by the deadline date of August 6, 2009. This email
was never forwarded to the Reidy's attorney and all communication between mid July and early August
was conducted without his knowledge. Mr. Snyder told Mr. Thuesen's attorney that he would convey the
offer to his client, the City of Edmonds. He was unclear whether the offer was discussed with the Council
but the City soon commenced action to remove his trees and shed. Mr. Miller contacted him on July 22,
2009 regarding the removal of his trees, asking him to sign an agreement allowing tree removal by
August 5, 2009.
During his public requests, he discovered an email prepared on July 28, 2009 from Mr. Snyder to Mr.
Miller, City Engineer Rob English, Building Official Jeanie McConnell and Planning Manager Rob
Chave. The email documents they met on July 21, 2009 to discuss Mr. Thuesen's offer to drop the civil
appeal of the vacation if these items were removed. Mr. Snyder was now beginning to change his stance
that the enforcement effort would be on hold until his adverse possession case was solved. Mr. Snyder
interpreted an unrecorded Court of Appeals case, which has no precedented legal value, that the City
could ignore the adverse possession case, issue Mr. Thuesen a civil plan approval to build a retaining wall
through the prescriptive area he (Mr. Reidy) was trying to quiet title in hopes that the quiet title action
would be unsuccessful. A time table was established for tree removal and removal of the shed. The City
slid a new order to correct under his door on August 7, 2009, a day after giving a copy to Mr. Thuesen's
attorney.
The civil plans had still not been approved; they were approved on August 13, 2009. In order to meet the
deadline, the City began its enforcement efforts a week prematurely; similar to the action they took when
they passed the ordinance on March 17, 2009. His legal expenses exploded as he tried to fight the
enforcement effort and how it would impact his adverse possession case. The situation quickly spiraled
out of control and his adverse possession case had to be delayed. On July 29, 2009, Mr. Thuesen's
attorney emailed Mr. Snyder asking about the status of the framework for resolution because the City's
decision could materially effect how they proceeded in fighting his adverse possession.
Mr. Reidy referred to Mr. Snyder's indication that he has failed to assert his adverse possession rights
early in the 2 -lot plat process. Throughout the majority of the time that this situation has been ongoing,
Mr. Snyder appears to have believed that Mr. Thuesen had finalized and recorded his plat. Mr. Snyder
has represented on many occasions that he failed to assert his adverse possession claims early in the
process and thus had failed to pursue his administrative remedies. Mr. Reidy assured his adverse
possession rights were intact and could still be asserted. Mr. Snyder's April 1, 2009 letter states his
adverse possession claims will not have any impact on Mr. Thuesen's 2 -lot final approval.
On September 22, 2009 Mr. Reidy asked Mr. Snyder to confirm the 2 -lot short plat had been finalized and
recorded at the County. Mr. Snyder did not know and asked Mr. Chave and Ms. McConnell who both
responded the plat had not been recorded at the County, Ms. McConnell adding that the City had released
performance bond money back to Mr. Thuesen that would have allowed him to finalize his 2 -lot plat. On
October 6, 2009 Mr. Snyder wrote a letter admitting he had failed to distinguish between final plat
approval and final approval of permits necessary to develop the preliminary plat. Mr. Reidy questioned
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 12
what would have been different throughout this process had Mr. Snyder known that Mr. Thuesen had not
finalized his 2 -lot plat at the County.
Mr. Reidy concluded it was time the elected officials did whatever they could to end this situation. The
appropriate thing would have been to never have reserved the temporary construction easement. He
suggested the temporary construction easement be removed from Ordinance 3729 and enforcement efforts
against him withdrawn. Steps must be taken to ensure this type of situation does not happen to an
innocent family again. To the question of why he has continued to fight, he explained the physical
attributes and benefits of his shed are a tiny part of this matter; the significance of his shed is what it
represents. The shed is representative of his family's true vested federal and state constitutional rights.
Citizens have rights to public notification of City Council actions that can dramatically impact their lives.
They have rights to public hearings and the right to prepare written and oral comments. They have the
right to expect the City to follow its own code and not have the burden of code enforcement shifted to
innocent citizens. The City Attorney has recommended a course of action that tramples on their
constitutional rights to grant a special privilege to a developer who has no need for, no permits for, and no
vested rights to temporarily use the property in question, property owned by his family. The City
Attorney has exacerbated the violation of their constitutional rights by trying to illegally take their
property via a code enforcement action. Edmonds can benefit from studying and learning from this
situation.
Mr. Reidy pointed out the City Attorney exceeded his authority when he intervened in a legislative
session on September 16, 2008 and recommended an action different from the Mayor and staff's
recommended action. Once Mr. Snyder did that, he had a conflict of interest that precluded him from
providing the City objective legal advice. He recommended Mr. Snyder remove himself from this case
immediately, noting he should have removed himself as soon as he recommended the temporary
construction easement. It is critical that Mr. Snyder know his role and what he can and cannot do;
intervening in a legislative session and recommending an action that differs from the Mayor and staff's
recommendation is inappropriate.
Mr. Reidy requested the Council conduct a thorough investigation into this matter including conducting
an assessment of the City Attorney's credibility. He requested Mr. Snyder be immediately removed from
this legal situation. He summarized the need for accountability, objectivity and transparency in City
government and the City Attorney. He thanked the Council for their assistance with this very difficult
matter.
Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, submitted the Hearing Examiner's decision which he indicated addressed all
the issues Mr. Reidy presented. Mr. Thuesen referred to information he provided for the Council packet
including a letter and a surveyor's map that identifies the Reidy's house, shed and sport court. He
explained the shed that Mr. Reidy indicates was constructed in 1965 is shown on the surveyor's map as
two structures, one identified as an outbuilding and a second structure attached to the outbuilding. The
outbuilding was permitted in 1965; Mr. Reidy's assertion that he obtained a permit for the entire building
is incorrect. The addition to the structure was added after the original building was constructed, without a
permit and in the City right -of -way. It is illegal to build a building without a permit and to construct a
building in a City right -of -way without an encroachment permit. Mr. Reidy did not obtain either to make
the building a legal structure. As a result the building is not a legal structure and according to the code,
he must apply for an encroachment permit or remove it from the City right -of -way and comply with the 5
foot setback in the zone. The Hearing Examiner denied Mr. Reidy's appeal because she found he did not
address the issue of whether the shed was legal, was not in the right -of -way, or that he had obtained
construction or encroachment permits.
With regard to the wetland, he agreed wetlands were important to all citizens including himself. The
City's codes address how wetlands are to be protected. The process outlined in the code including hiring
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 13
an expert to determine the wetland type and location. The code also determines how much of the wetland
will be preserved; at the time he submitted an application, the code clearly stated the size of a wetland that
must be protected was 2500 square feet. A wetland less than 2500 square feet was unregulated by the
City. Experts hired via a third party agreement examined the wetland and made the determination. The
neighbors have never accepted that determination and the City contested the determination which resulted
in a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) case where the Superior Court Judge made a determination regarding
the wetland. In that proceeding Mr. Snyder and Ms. Croll represented the City and the neighbors were
also represented by an attorney. The legal determination was the wetland was under 2500 square feet and
as such was not regulated by the City.
As an unregulated wetland outside the authority of the City, the wetland is under the authority of the DOE
or Army Corp of Engineers. To Ms. Bloom's assertion that the wetland is not connected, he assured it
was, noting the City has drawings showing a storm sewer connection that drains to Shell Creek. Because
it is not an isolated wetland, the DOE has no authority; the Army Corp of Engineers has authority. He
applied to the Army Corp of Engineers who made the decision the wetland could be filled.
He agreed this situation had been going on a long time; the first three years were in court to determine
whether the wetland was regulated. The last two years have been in regard to the removal of the shed.
To Mr. Reidy's question why the City granted him a temporary construction easement, he explained his
first application was for a 2 -lot short plat that utilized the alley. That application was denied due to the
encroachment in the alley, Mr. Reidy's shed. He decided to move the wall away from the alley and
construct the wall on his own property. During the past year there has been a disagreement regarding
whether Mr. Reidy's shed should be removed. He requested the Council rely on experts, follow the code
and if someone constructed an illegal structure, they be required to remove it.
Mr. Thuesen read a letter he submitted that was included in the Council packet: By a letter dated January
13, 2010, I received notice that you would like to hear from me at the next Council meeting on January
26, 2010 and that you would accept any written materials from me if submitted before January 20, 2010.
As you know I have been out of town since the beginning of December and only just returned on January
15th
The historical reports from the City Attorney regarding the Thuesen subdivision and alley vacation as
reflected in the December 1, 2009 minutes appears fairly thorough and largely correct. Mr. Snyder
outlined the legal actions and decisions vesting the short plat, the pending legal actions to date, Mr.
Reidy's failure to appeal, require reconsideration and the consequences of possible Council decisions. He
has also outlined the balance beam the City is walking between my vested rights and Mr. Reidy's code
violations.
When I filed my preliminary plat application(s), I was not required to submit a survey of the property's
exterior boundaries (that is a survey that generally isn't required until the final plat unless the City
separately asks for a formal boundary survey earlier; the City didn't ask me to provide a boundary survey
at the time it reviewed my preliminary plat). Prior to beginning plat improvements and installing utilities
for the short plat per the approved preliminary plat, L.S.A. completed a construction survey. The survey
uncovered an alley encroachment (i.e. the Reidy shed). Reidy contracted with Western Survey to perform
a boundary survey in order to verify L.S.A.'s survey. The Western Survey verified an unpermitted lean -
to shed extension (extending into the alley), an unpermitted single car garage in the Daley Street right -of-
way (building in 5/03/91 per county assessor), a shed conversion to office and sports court (each
encroaching into 8th Avenue and the alley, respectively, and both unpermitted — constructed by Reidys in
2003). (Appraisers report and aerial photographs and an outline of the permit history for the Reidy
residence included in Council packet.)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 14
Reidy purchased the property in 1994 and executed an earnest money with Mrs. Cox. A condition of the
purchase and sale agreement between Reidy and Cox was that Reidy would order a survey to verify the
location of the structures and their compliance with setbacks prior to closing. The Reidys decided to
purchase the property apparently without verification by survey and decided to construct a sports court
and lean -to shed without permits.
It is unreasonable to ask the City knowingly to turn a blind eye to structures that were built without
permits, violate setbacks, encroach into alleys and rights -of -way in order to resolve his problems and at
the same time violate the vested rights of my plat. Reidy is attempting to have all these problems solved
by demanding the City relax its codes claiming he is an innocent victim of a developer and a hostile City.
This could not be further from the truth. He has made his own decisions throughout this process and
unfortunately they were incorrect.
Reidy has had legal counsel since at least April 2007 and has been apprised of all legal avenues and
appeal actions necessary. He has made his own decisions about required legal actions (appeals and
reconsiderations). To date Mr. Reidy:
• Chose not to obtain a boundary survey at the time of purchase
• Did not appeal the 2 -lot and 3 -lot short plat applications
• Did not request Council reconsideration of alley vacation ordinance
• Chose not to appeal or otherwise challenge the vacation ordinance
• Failed to assert an adverse possession claim in 2007 prior to City's approval of both 2 -lot and 3-
lot preliminary plat approvals or prior to City's issuance of engineering permits for development
of 2 -lot short plat
• Failed to appeal original notice of violation and failed to timely appeal order to correct violation
• Has admitted in writing and verbally that the structures are unpermitted and in violation of City
Code and previously agreed to a timeframe for removal (that he did not comply with)
With respect to my short plat, I believe there are several other things going on that are operating to delay
my ability to move forward. Certain neighbors have never accepted the legal conclusion and approval of
the short plat. Mr. Reidy, with the help of Mrs. Moore, has gathered together those neighbors in an
attempt to persuade the Council to act against my vested interests and prevent the plat from being
finalized. It is legally improper for the City to take any action that would support this attempt to delay my
project. To the contrary, the City has an obligation to enforce its codes and order removal or to remove
the lean -to structure. By failing to do it, the City is preventing the construction of an approved retaining
wall that is necessary for physical access to the middle lot.
Over the last 2 years I have attempted to negotiate with Reidy, redesigned my wall location outside of the
alley in an attempt to finalize the plat and patiently waited for the city to enforce its order to correct
violation. The City's decision over the last 2 years not to take determinative and timely action is violating
my vested rights under the short plat approvals and the terms of the settlement agreement, and is delaying
my ability to proceed with construction of the plat.
Any stay in the pending enforcement action will result in more delays to my development. The city
should not attempt to remedy Reidy's code violation by violating my vested right. Further, if the city
were to bow to the attempts made by Mrs. Moore, Mr. Reidy and certain other neighbors and pressure the
City to throw out the issued vested permit, I will suffer substantial damages that the city would be
responsible for.
It is clear to me that Mrs. Moore is coordinating with Mr. Reidy for political gain. She is well aware from
her years on the Council of the quasi judicial responsibilities the City must honor in matters such as these.
I strongly believe she should disqualify herself from this involvement with the neighbors.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 15
The City needs to take affirmative and conclusive steps to enforce its code, take immediate action to
finally remedy the outstanding Reidy code violation and leave the temporary construction easement in
place. Any other approach by the City means that I have to protect my vested rights through formal legal
action against the City and Mr. Reidy which I very much don't want to be forced into.
8. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS.
Councilmember Plunkett reported on the Parking Committee meeting where employee permits were
discussed and also noted that Parking Enforcement Officer Debbie Dawson plans to present five minor
changes to the Parking Committee with regard to the parking code and better parking enforcement. With
regard to the Historic Preservation Commission, Councilmember Plunkett announced 17 properties have
been nominated for registration on the City's Historic Registry.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported she spoke to the Economic Development Commission. She
recognized the work they are doing and looked forward to a brighter future for Edmonds.
Councilmember Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum is trying to determine how best to organize
itself as a board. The only way to clean up Lake Ballinger and keep it clean is to have a governance
model that can be maintained over a significant period of time. He commented on the difficulty of getting
all six groups involved in the forum to agree on a governance model and that they may be nearing an
impasse. He offered to work with Mayor Haakenson and staff to bring a resolution to the Council to
reiterate the City's support for Lake Ballinger and ensure if the Forum reached an impasse that the Lake
Ballinger project remained a top priority for the City.
Councilmember Orvis reported he attended the Economic Development Commission and the Board of
Health meetings. The Board of Health adopted a policy to require all unpaid fees be paid at the time of
permit renewal. He presented an award to one of the cleanest restaurants in Snohomish County which is
located in Lynnwood.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she also attended the Economic Development Commission meeting
as well as two Port Commission meetings. The Port reviewed their year -to -date financials and fiscal year
end 2009. The Port made a profit in 2009 and is working on making their financials more transparent and
easy for the public to understand. A representative of the Snohomish County Economic Development
Commission made a presentation to the Port Commission, and has made a similar presentation to the
city's Economic Development Commission. She relayed by 2014, 30% of Snohomish County residents
will be over the age of 60.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reiterated his offer to develop a list of opportunities to name something after the late
Councilmember Olson.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Council had developed a labor negotiation strategy policy at the
retreat. He relayed that recently inquiries from the City's labor unions have been forwarded to City
Attorney Scott Snyder who has participated in past labor negotiations. He requested the Council inform
him if they intended to change that process.
As Chair of the SNOCOM and the 800 MHz SERS Boards in 2010, Mayor Haakenson invited the
Directors of SNOCOM and SERS to provide a report to the Council.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 16
S1 - "01[on WKII U -1\% 1 N 01(I-1f
Council President Bernheim advised the labor negotiation issue is on the April 13 Finance Committee
agenda. Mayor Haakenson suggested the Committee discuss the matter at the March meeting. Council
President Bernheim requested a schedule regarding when contract negotiations begin. Mayor Haakenson
advised two labor unions have indicated a desire to begin early negotiations; negotiations typically do not
begin until summer. He requested direction from the Council whether they wanted to continue with the
existing practices or whether they wanted to hire a separate negotiator.
Council President Bernheim reported he will be scheduling a series of opportunities for the public to
comment on budget cuts beginning with the March 23 meeting. He explained the City was in a dire
financial situation with regard to tax revenue versus expenditures and his intent was to give the public an
opportunity to identify where cuts could be made. The Council could consider the information in
discussions regarding whether to raise taxes.
Councilmember Wilson suggested guidance regarding labor negotiations be provided in Executive
Session. He agreed the information regarding the negotiator or how negotiations would occur could be
done during an open meeting. Council President Bernheim explained he planned to invite several labor
negotiators to describe to the Finance Committee the services that a specialized labor negotiator could
offer. Councilmember Wilson expressed interest in that information and suggested it be scheduled at a
Council meeting.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about employee health insurance, recalling the Association of
Washington Cities planned to discontinue Plan A, employees' primary health benefit package, at the end
of 2010. Mayor Haakenson stated he would request Human. Resources Director Debi Humann provide
the Council an update.
Councilmember Wilson reported he spoke at a Lions Club meeting last night. One of the questions posed
was whether City employees received a 5% salary increase last year. He recalled the inflation rate in
2008 was approximately 5% and employees were provided an approximately 5% cost of living increase in
2009. He explained the contracts have a minimum 2.5% cost of living increase, noting that may be
something that should be addressed during negotiations. He summarized citizens were watching the
Council closely; public employee compensation is now on average greater than private employee
compensation. If the Council wants to ask voters for a levy increase, these are issues that will arise.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas pointed out although employees received an increase, they also took
furlough days which nearly eliminated the raise. Councilmember Wilson relayed comments made at the
Lions meeting regarding the pay level for directors and how quickly a levy increase that generated $2
million would be consumed by salaries. He also made the argument that the City needed more police
officers to reach the average level of officers per capita.
Councilmember Buckshnis reminded this Friday is the first Town Hall meeting, held at Prestige Care and
Rehabilitation Center at 21008 76`b Avenue. She announced an adopt -a -park project; she will make a
presentation to the Council in March. The intent of the project is for citizens to spend one day cleaning
up a park.
With regard to Mr. Wambolt's comments, Councilmember Buckshnis explained the current Finance
Director admitted the prior Finance Director was responsible for the Fire District 1 numbers. Citizens
believed the numbers had been reviewed by the current Finance Director but apparently they had not. Her
concern was the Fire District 1 numbers were prepared by a former Finance Director who now works for
Fire District 1.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 17
Mayor Haakenson reported Lorenzo Hines was hired as the Interim Finance Director and given one job —
to review the numbers prepared by former Finance Director Junglov. Although the numbers were
prepared by Ms. J'unglov, in the end they were Mr. Hines' numbers.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 18