01/04/2011 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 4, 2011
At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
threatened litigation and labor negotiations. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public
Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected
officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett,
Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder,
Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at
7:05 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Cooper requested Item 13, Discussion and Potential Action on a Proposed Resolution Creating a
Planning Committee to Consider a Regional Fire Authority, be moved to Item 8A.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #123003 THROUGH #123023 DATED DECEMBER
21, 2010 FOR $389,972.56, AND #123024 THROUGH #123171 DATED DECEMBER 29,
2010 FOR $247,255.55. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#50107 THROUGH #501.35 DATED DECEMBER 20, 201.0 FOR $621,822.20.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 1
D. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF
EDMONDS AND MIKE DOUBLEDAY.
E. RESOLUTION NO. 1240 — THANKING COUNCILMEMBER STEVE BERNHEIM FOR
HIS SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
F. ORDINANCE NO. 3832 — AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 1.03.030 TO DIRECT
STAFF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN
PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE IS DELAYED, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
3. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO COUNCILMEMBER STEVE
BERNHEIM.
Councilmember Peterson read a resolution highlighting many of Council President Bernheim's
accomplishments during 2010. He presented the resolution along with a plaque thanking Mr. Bernheim
for serving as Council President.
Mayor Cooper expressed his thanks to Councilmember Bernheim for his service as Council President.
4. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2011.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS NOMINATED STROM PETERSON FOR THE
POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2011. . COUNCILMEMBER WILSON SECONDED
THE NOMINATION.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented after working with Councilmember Peterson over the past
year, she felt he would be a great Council President for the Council and citizens. She urged the Council to
support his selection as Council President.
THE VOTE ON THE NOMINATION FOR STROM PETERSON FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2011 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2011. .
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT NOMINATED LORA PETSO FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2011. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM SECONDED
THE NOMINATION.
THE VOTE ON THE NOMINATION FOR LORA PETSO FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2011 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES.
Council President Peterson read the following Committee appointments:
Committee
Representative
Community Serv. /Dev. Serv. Committee
Councilmembers Plunkett and Fraley - Monillas
Finance Committee
Councilmembers Bernheim and Petso
Public Safety Committee
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Wilson
Citizens Economic Development Committee
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Plunkett
City -wide Parking Committee
Councilmembers Fraley - Monillas and Petso
Community Technology Advisory Committee
Councilmember Plunkett
Community Transit
Councilmember Bernheim
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 2
Disability Board
Councilmembers Fraley - Monillas and Peterson
Highway 99 Task Force
Councilmembers Plunkett and Bernheim
Historic Preservation Advisory Commission
Councilmembers Plunkett and Petso
Lake Ballinger Work Group
Councilmember Wilson
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
Councilmember Wilson
PFD Oversight Committee
Councilmember Petso
Port of Edmonds
Councilmember Bernheim
SeaShore Transportation Forum
Councilmember Bernheim
SNOCOM
Councilmember Wilson and Police Chief Compaan
Snohomish County Health District
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas
Snohomish County Tomorrow
Councilmember Buckshnis
South Snohomish Cities
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas
Salmon Recovery - WRIA -8
Councilmember Buckshnis
Council President Peterson explained it had been agreed during budget discussions that the Municipal
Court Review, Community Outreach and Long Range Task Force Committees were no longer needed.
HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1241, APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER ADRIENNE FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested she be appointed as an alternate. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised in
the past there had not been a formally designated alternate. The Health District Board could be informed
that Councilmember Buckshnis would serve as the alternate. It was agreed Councilmember Fraley -
Monillas would ask Councilmember Buckshnis to attend any meetings she was unable to attend.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBERS AS REPRESENTATIVE AND
ALTERNATE TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA
CORPORATION.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1242, APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER STEVE
BERNHEIM AS THE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8A. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A PROPOSED RESOLUTION CREATING A
PLANNING COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER A REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY.
Councilmember Wilson explained a Regional Fire Authority (RFA) planning committee was previously
established with former Mayor Haakenson, former Councilmember Wambolt and him participating. The
proposed resolution reaffirms that planning committee and appoints new members. It was originally
assumed the members of the Public Safety Committee and the Mayor would participate, as the
membership of the Public Safety Committee has changed, he asked whether Councilmember Fraley -
Monillas wanted to defer membership on the planning committee to Councilmember Buckshnis as the
new member of the Public Safety Committee.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 3
Council President Peterson suggested since a great deal of Councilmember Buckshnis' time is taken by
her leadership of the Citizen Levy Committee and both issues are on parallel tracks, another
Councilmember be appointed to the RFA planning committee.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1243, REPLACING COUNCILMEMBER
ADRIENNE FRALEY- MONILLAS WITH COUNCILMEMBER LORA PETSO.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether more than three people could serve on the planning committee
such as citizens. Mayor Cooper answered the statute that created RFAs is very clear that the planning
committee consist of three elected officials from each jurisdiction. Their meetings are subject to the Open
Public Meetings Act. He remarked Fire District 1 has three Fire Commissioners on the planning
commission, Fire Chief Widdis and other staff routinely attend the meetings. Because three members of
the Fire District Board of Commissioners constitutes a quorum, the planning committee meetings are
noticed as a special meeting. Citizens cannot be voting members of the committee but it is beneficial to
have citizen input at the planning committee meetings.
14CIY11_CI7►[a13 9 113 101 I111►/:,1►110[11ily"
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON HOME OCCUPATIONS (ECDC 20.20) - A PROPOSED CODE
AMENDMENT THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUES OF PERMIT TYPE PROCESS AND COST
INCLUDING THE DEGREE THAT CUSTOMERS EMPLOYEES OR SIGNAGE SHOULD BE
PERMITTED FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES (FILE NO.
AMD20100016).
Planner Gina Coccia explained ECDC was currently under review and amendments are proposed to meet
the following purposes: streamline the home occupation process, reduce fees to small business owners,
support home based work and preserve the residential character of neighborhoods.
On May 11, 2010 the Community Services /Development Services Committee directed staff to work with
the Planning Board on this issue. The Planning Board discussed this item at their July 14 and October 14
meetings and the Code Enforcement Officer provided his opinions at the October 14 meeting. Minutes of
the Planning Board meetings are contained in Exhibit 4. The Planning Board held a public hearing on
November 10 and forwarded a recommendation to the Council which is contained in Exhibit 1.
ECDC 21.40.040 defines home occupation as an economic enterprise operated within a dwelling unit or
buildings accessory to a dwelling unit incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit
including the use of a dwelling unit as a business address in the phone directory or as a post office mailing
address. Currently when home occupation applications are submitted to the City Clerk's office, they are
routed to various departments for consideration of compliance with applicable codes. Under the current
process, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is available for any business that does not meet all the home
occupation criteria in Title 20.20. A CUP requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner and costs
$1,550. One of the proposed changes is an Administrative CUP, a Type II administrative staff decision
with a fee of $585.
Ms. Coccia reviewed existing criteria for permitting a home occupation contained in Exhibit 2:
1. Is carried on exclusively by a family member residing in the dwelling unit; and
2. Is conducted entirely within the structures on the site, without any significant outside activity; and
3. Uses no heavy equipment, power tools or power sources not common to a residence; and
4. Has no pickup or delivery by business related commercial vehicles (except for the U.S. Mail)
which exceeds 20,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
5. Creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke or other impact adverse to a residential area
beyond that normally associated with residential use; and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 4
6. Does not include any employees outside of the family members residing at the residence,
including but not limited to persons working at or visiting the subject property; and
7. All performance criteria established pursuant to ECDC 17.60.010
Ms. Coccia referred to a matrix in Exhibit 3 that compares other cities' home occupations review
processes. For example, Shoreline allows one non - family employee, Lynnwood allows one customer per
hour between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. but no employees or vehicles on or near the site, and Mercer Island
does not have a land use process for home occupations, it is complaint driven.
The Planning Board also considered new definitions; a home occupation for urban farming is defined as
the display or sale of edible farm products or fresh produce grown onsite, an artist studio, defined as the
display or sale of handmade products, artwork that is produced on site. Items or artwork created offsite
are not included in the definition.
She proposed the following process change: staff would evaluate proposals to ensure adequate parking for
customers and employees, appropriate signage scale and design, protect the neighborhood from
degradation from vehicles parking offsite, indiscrete signage. The administrative CUP Type II
application process is currently used for accessory dwelling units and tree cutting permits.
When evaluating how the code could/should be changed she suggested the Council and citizens consider
more examples of home occupation such as a construction company, part -time music teacher, busy
massage therapist, part-time hair dresser, an accounting firm, or a martial arts instructor with a home
studio. The Planning Board asked themselves several questions — which types of businesses would a
neighbor or passerby notice? Which types of impacts are important to consider in a neighborhood setting?
How could the code be rewritten so that neighbors do notice an impact to the residential quality? How
should the City regulate home occupations? What is the difference between visits from employees and
customers? What impacts would urban farmers and artist studios have?
Home occupation is a permitted secondary use in all R zones; the primary use must still be residential.
The Planning Board and staff agree a $1,550 Type III -B CUP heard by the Hearing Examiner is not
necessarily appropriate. Staff can conduct the same review via a Type 11 permit to analyze proposals on a
case -by -case basis. Public notice, public comment periods and a sign are still required as part of the Type
II process.
Ms. Coccia explained the intent of residential zones was to protect residential uses from noise, odor, dust
and heavy truck traffic that may result from more intense uses. The proposed changes would outright
allow employees, customers and signage. The Planning Board considered whether that would fit with
residential zones.
She summarized the proposed changes in Exhibit 1 would allow some things to be permitted outright
such as customers and employees which would streamline the process. Under the current process, a home
occupation that included employees and /or customers would require a CUP. Another option would be to
retain the current code and only change the process.
Ms. Coccia reviewed the changes proposed in Exhibit 1:
1.. Reference to the City's Community Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan was
added to the Purpose section (20.20.000).
2. One employee would be permitted outright (20.20.010.A.6). Currently no employees are
permitted to visit the site. This is a major change to the code.
3. Reference to the commercial vehicle standards from ECDC 17.50.100 was inserted, warning
folks that a separate review process is required if they would like to have a commercial vehicle
in excess of 10,000 pounds GVW.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 5
4. The home occupation could have one visit by a vehicle per hour between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 9:00 p.m. (20.20.010.A.9). This implies that the vehicle could contain more than one
customer. Currently no customers are permitted to visit the site. This is a major change to the
code.
5. A section was deleted that explains how a business license can be revoked if it is found that a
customer visited the premises, because it is recommended that the code be amended to allow
customers.
6. If a business can not meet the permitted use criteria outright, then a conditional use permit is
required. The process was changed (ECDC 20.20.010.13) so that the conditional use permit
review is administrative and conducted by staff as a "Type 11" permit ($585) instead of going to
the Hearing Examiner for review ($1,550). This is a major change to the code.
7. A section was deleted that describes how traffic from customers should not be generated from
outside the neighborhood (ECDC 20.10.010.B.5). This is impossible to document and enforce.
8. Regulations added that require not more than one employee to visit per day, not more than one
customer vehicle per hour, and prohibits customers from coming to visit at night between 9:00
p.m. and 8:00 a.m. The Code Enforcement Office stated at the Planning Board meeting this is on
the honor system and impossible to enforce.
9. Regulations added that require the applicant to prove there is sufficient parking (for three
vehicles) if they would like to have customers or employees.
10. Two new definitions were created: "Urban Farming" and "Artist Studio" along with associated
regulations (20.10.010.0 and 20. 10.0 10.1)).
11. A section on prohibited home occupations was deleted.
12. Commercial signage in residential zones was discussed. Currently, the sign code allows
residents to erect a 4 square foot sign in residential zones (e.g. "The Smith Family ") without a
building permit, but the home occupation code did not allow commercial signs outright (e.g.
"Smith's Accounting Services "). A section was changed to clarify that commercial signage
would be allowed, so long as the total residential signage does not exceed the allowed 4 square
feet. Also, that a building permit is required so review can be conducted.
13. The current code allows for an applicant to ask the Hearing Examiner for anything that isn't
outright permitted with their conditional use permit application. The Planning Board agreed that
the process should be changed to allow staff to conduct the conditional use permit review.
Ms. Coccia explained one detail may have been overlooked during the last draft revision. As written, the
recommended code does not allow the applicant to ask staff for anything that is not outright permitted;
Sections 20.20.010.B.4, 2020.010.13.5 and 20.20.010.B.6 place limitations on customers and employee
visits.
Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing on this topic to discuss the pros and cons of
each potential change, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance to implement the Planning Board's recommendation.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was a standard for the number of customers per hour under
the existing CUP process. Ms. Coccia answered no; it was part of the review.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the proposed change that would require the applicant to prove there
is sufficient parking. He asked how an applicant proved they had sufficient parking, what is the definition
of sufficient parking and was the parking required to be off - street. Ms. Coccia answered under the current
CUP process, the applicant submits a site plan and identifies where vehicles could be parked onsite. At
the public hearing additional on- street parking may be referenced. Under the proposed administrative
CUP, she anticipated an applicant could submit with their business license application a site plan that
shows available parking.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether under the proposed staff review the parking could be onsite or
offsite. Ms. Coccia answered parking was required to be provided onsite. Councilmember Plunkett
clarified the requirement was parking for three vehicles onsite.
Councilmember Plunkett anticipated making three amendments and asked whether this item would need
to be referred back to the Planning Board. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered following the public
hearing, the Council could refer changes to the Planning Board or the Council could approve changes as
long as they were within the range of alternatives considered by the Planning Board.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the proposed changes would affect all zones. Ms. Coccia answered
only R zones, single family and multi family residential. Councilmember Buckshnis observed
enforcement was complaint based or the honor system. Ms. Coccia stated that is the current process.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented other areas promote co -op artist studios and shared office space.
She asked how this issue arose, if it was an effort to reduce greenhouse emissions or promote home
businesses. Ms. Coccia stated the City frequently has to inform home occupation applicants that they are
unable to have customers unless they complete the $1,550 CUP process. Councilmember Buckshnis
asked how many people have objected. Ms. Coccia referred to testimony at the Planning Board public
hearing.
Student Representative Gibson inquired about the height limit for signage. Ms. Coccia advised the sign
code chapter, ECDC 20.60 contains sign regulations. Student Representative Gibson referred to the
proposed restriction on vehicles visiting the residence from 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. and asked if customers
could walk to the residence during those hours. Ms. Coccia answered the Planning Board discussed
customers and it was changed to vehicles. She agreed that was unclear.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Jonathan Bannister, Edmonds, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Budo Association, expressed
his support for the changes proposed by staff to ECDC 20.20 with regard to home occupations. As stated
in his remarks to the Planning Board, he has been a martial arts and cultural arts instructor for many
years. Until two years ago, he operated a very successful school in Seattle which collapsed due to the
economic downturn. He now has a small number of students who would like to continue practicing in his
home studio. He described his practice of martial arts since the age of 8, traveling the world teaching tens
of thousands of people. He wanted to bring students to Edmonds because it is a remarkable place for
those interested in artistic endeavors and he would like to bring the refined arts he has studied to
Edmonds. The practices he engages in are very self - disciplined, quiet and would contribute to the quality
of life in Edmonds. He expressed his gratitude to the efforts of staff and the Council who brought this
issue forward. He also expressed his admiration and satisfaction with the Planning Board's process.
Rick Spellman, Edmonds, expressed his vehement opposition and great concern with the proposed
changes to the home occupation section of the ECDC. The changes have the potential over time to
completely and permanently erode the single family residential zones which also devalue Edmonds
neighborhoods. He found it unfair to residents who purchased homes in single family zones for the
purpose of what the zones have to offer — single residential, family - friendly neighborhoods — to abruptly
change the zone to allow business - oriented traffic, noise and pollution. He disagreed that limiting the
number of trips to home occupation businesses will preserve the character of residentially zoned
neighborhoods, finding the proposal would disrupt the peace, quiet and clean air of single family, friendly
residential areas and not preserve its character. The proposed change would allow 13 vehicles to visit a
home occupation between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. plus one employee vehicle. If there were three allowed
businesses in a neighborhood that would equate to 84 trips per day. The proposal does not limit the
number of home occupation businesses allowed in a neighborhood; a single block, dead -end street or cul-
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 7
de -sac could be greatly impacted. He posed several questions such as 13 customers arriving in the first 4
hours, how a business would be closed to customers if the number of vehicles were exceeded for the day,
and whether most homes had driveway space for three vehicles. With only one Code Enforcement Officer
in the City he anticipated affected neighbors would be required to provide enforcement, pitting neighbors
against each other. He was dismayed that the Planning Board had allowed such a vague a proposal with
such questionable benefit to be approved. He summarized it may be called home occupation zoning but
he felt it was commercial zoning.
(Councilmember Fraley- Monillas left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.)
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Spellman's comments. He recalled concern in the past with
customers visiting a dentist who operated his practice in Talbot Park. He suggested Councilmembers
consider how they would react if a home occupation were located in their neighborhood. He suggested
this be the beginning of the discussion, publicizing the matter and holding a second public hearing,
anticipating more citizens would testify in the future. He questioned the size of vehicles that would be
allowed to visit the residence, the size of allowed signage, and groups visiting a business versus one
customer per hour. He suggested this topic needed further review.
Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment that this was an abrupt change, pointing out there were
permitted home occupations in neighborhoods today. Ms. Coccia explained the proposed changes would
allow customers and employees outright. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a home occupation
could currently have customers. Ms. Coccia explained they could not without an approved CUP.
Councilmember Plunkett commented a citizen such as Dr. Bannister could have a home occupation with
customers today as long as he obtained a CUP.
Councilmember Plunkett explained this topic began with a conversation he had with Dr. Bannister
regarding the $1,550 expense of a CUP. The original concept was to allow staff review of a CUP to
reduce the cost. He asked whether the existing code could be retained and simply change it to a staff -
equivalent CUP. He asked what constituted a staff - equivalent CUP. Ms. Coccia explained a Type 11
administrative staff decision is a CUP and property owners within 300 feet of the property are notified, a
sign is placed on the property and notice is published the same as a public hearing. If a neighbor wanted
to appeal the staff decision, it would be heard by the Hearing Examiner at a public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the applicant would be required to pay an appeal fee to the
Hearing Examiner. Ms. Coccia answered the appellant would pay the appeal fee.
Councilmember Plunkett summarized a home occupant applicant would pay a $585 fee for the Type II
review and the neighbors would be notified. Ms. Coccia explained neighbors with concerns /comments
could contact staff before the close of the comment period. Staff would analyze their concerns in the staff
report and reach a decision. If any party of record disagrees with the decision, they have the right to
appeal. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Council could theoretically retain the provisions in the
existing code and the Type II review would lower the cost from $1,550 to $585. Ms. Coccia agreed.
Councilmember Petso asked if a CUP could be revoked if "something went wrong" such as groups of
customers visiting a business. Ms. Coccia stated it would become a code enforcement issue at that point.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how revising the fee could be accomplished. Mr. Snyder advised fees
were established via resolution; if the Council instructed, staff could revise the fee and schedule it on a
future agenda.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 8
Councilmember Bernheim commented in spite of comments regarding negative effects of home
occupations, he was supportive of expanding the availability of a home occupation to residents. He
remarked the agenda memo was one of the best he had seen and included a redline version of the code,
background materials, etc. If problems developed such as vehicles interfering with the neighborhood
character or too many businesses opening that changed the character, there were remedies available. He
commented the reason for increasing the availability of home occupations was due to the number of
people out of work who are unable to legally have a home occupation that has an employee. He
experienced that difficulty himself. He anticipated residential neighborhoods would have more
professional activities in the future.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Bernheim's comments.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE
PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 2, ITEM 6 TO DELETE THE AMENDED LANGUAGE SO THAT IT
READS, "DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY EMPLOYEES..."
Councilmember Wilson recalled he originally started his business in his home. He did not have any
customers but hired an employee and an intern who worked in an extra room. When he learned he could
no longer operate a successful business with an employee and an intern working in a room, he rented an
office but he was able to grow his business by starting with one employee and an intern in his home. His
neighbors on both sides have home occupation businesses. He acknowledged the intent of the amendment
was good but in his experience, if a business was doing well enough to have 13 customer visits a day,
they would need an outside office to serve more customers. He did not want to prohibit people from
growing their business by prohibiting employees. The concerns are legitimate but in his experience were
more likely theoretical than practical.
Councilmember Petso did not perceive the amendment as prohibiting people from growing their business.
The code states a home occupation can be approved outright without employees; for a person to grow
their business and add an employee would require a Type 11 review process.
Councilmember Bernheim stated he would not support the amendment as one employee was a small
number and in these difficult economic times, home occupations were important. He doubted neighbors
would be asking staff to review the impact of one employee on their neighborhood's character.
Mayor Cooper stated his wife has a home occupation but has no customers that visit their residence or any
employees.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (3 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, PLUNKETT AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND BERNHEIM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley -
Monillas was not present for the vote.)
MAYOR COOPER VOTED NO, AND THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3 -4).
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED TO AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 2, ITEM 9 TO READ,
"DOES NOT INCLUDE VISITS FROM CUSTOMERS IN EXCESS OF ONE VEHICLE EVERY
TWO HOURS PER HOUR..." MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 3, ITEM 7, TO READ, "IF VISITS TO THE SITE ARE TO BE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 9
MADE BY EITHER AN OFF -SITE EMPLOYEE OR CUSTOMER, ON -SITE PARKING SHALL
BE PROVIDED FOR AT LEAST TWO (2) THREE (3) VEHICLES; AND"
Student Representative Gibson asked if the change assumed the homeowner had another parking space as
the proposal for three parking spaces provided parking for the homeowner, one employee and one
customer. Ms. Coccia explained any single family residential zone was required to provide two onsite
parking spaces which may be stacked. The intent of the proposal was to allow two stacked spaces in the
driveway and one additional space for a total of three. Councilmember Plunkett summarized the intent of
the proposed language was to accommodate a total of three vehicle regardless of who they belonged to.
Ms. Coccia agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Exhibit 1, page 5, Item B regarding signs and asked if signs remained
a CUP, could Item B be changed to a Type II review. Ms. Coccia agreed it could.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 5, ITEM, B TO READ, "A SIGN IS PERMITTED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A TYPE II PERMIT."
Councilmember Wilson asked if the proposed language allows a sign with a home occupation permit and
continues the existing authority under the CUP to allow a sign. Ms. Coccia explained a commercial sign
is currently not permitted outright; a sign can be allowed via a CUP. Councilmember Plunkett clarified
the proposed language would allow a sign outright. Ms. Coccia agreed, noting it also clarifies the
difference between a commercial sign in a residential zone. Councilmember Plunkett summarized his
amendment split the difference and would allow a sign via a Type II administrative staff decision.
Councilmember Wilson supported home occupations but did not support allowing signs. The current code
states a sign can be permitted via the CUP process which costs $1,550. The proposed language allows a 4
square foot sign and Councilmember Plunkett's proposal is to split the difference. He preferred not to
allow any signs for a home based business without a CUP process.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed his opposition to the amendment, commenting a 4 square foot sign
was very small.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he proposed the amendment assuming the main motion would pass. If
the Council was willing to give more scrutiny to signs as Councilmember Wilson suggested, he preferred
to be more stringent.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND TO RETAIN THE EXISTING LANGUAGE IN EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 5, ITEM B, "A
SIGN IS PERMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT."
Planning Manager Rob Chave pointed out the existing language allows via a CUP a home occupation to
have an additional 3 square feet allocated to the home occupation sign. The proposed language states a
home occupation sign is permitted but it is counted as part of the total 4 square feet allowed on residential
property. The proposed language expanded the ability for a home occupation sign but restricted the total
to 4 square feet and would not allow a total of 7 square feet of signage. Councilmember Wilson observed
under the existing language a home occupation could have a total of 7 square feet of signage via a CUP.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 10
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council vote on the intent of the amendment and staff revise the
ordinance accordingly, not allowing a total of 7 square feet and limiting signage to 4 square feet and
require a CUP process.
Council President Peterson clarified under the proposed language a home occupation could have a 4
square foot sign and could request a larger sign via a CUP. Under the existing language and the
amendment, no sign was allowed without a CUP process. He asked whether the intent was to limit all
residential home occupation signs. Councilmember Plunkett answered yes; his intent was to limit signs to
a total of 4 square feet.
Council President Peterson asked whether the amendment would also require an amendment to the sign
code to limit a home occupation sign to 4 square feet. Councilmember Plunkett agreed that was his intent.
Mr. Snyder relayed his understanding of the motion was to allow a home occupation sign via a CUP.
There was not a proposal to change the last sentence in that item nor was there a proposal to change the 4
foot maximum in the sign code. The 4 square foot maximum would continue to apply and a portion of the
sign could be used to reference a business if approval was granted via the CUP process. Councilmember
Plunkett agreed that was his intent. Mr. Snyder summarized there would still be a 4 square foot limit
regardless but the business could only be mentioned in the sign with a CUP.
Councilmember Bernheim commented a homeowner could have a 4 square foot sign now; the only
change was making it illegal to have the home occupation on that sign without a CUP. He was opposed to
the amendment, preferring that people be allowed to have small signs that state anything they want
including advertising their home business.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified a sign advertising a home business would not be illegal, it would be
conditional.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS,
PLUNKETT, WILSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON
AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not
present for the vote.)
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether neighbors were notified of a home occupation. Ms. Coccia
answered there would be notification via a Type 11 administrative staff decision. The change was from a
public hearing before the Hearing Examiner to a staff review; there would still be notification.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT AND
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for
the vote.)
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Wilson's questions of the Public Works Director
Phil Williams following his comments at the last Council meeting regarding leakage from the City's
water system. He referred to the 2009 Water Efficiency Reports available on the Washington State
Department of Health website that indicates Edmonds annual water leakage is 7.6 %. He disputed Mr.
Williams' contention that the water leakage rates of other water purveyors were similar; Olympic View
reported 4.4 %, Alderwood Water reported 6.6% and Everett reported 2.3 %. He asserted that in 2002 the
City Council asked staff to look for leaks; he has been unable to ascertain who the City hired to look for
the leaks. Next, he referred to the approval of an addendum to the Hearing Examiner service agreement
on the December 21 Consent Agenda. The agreement has a non - assignment clause; he disagreed with the
City Attorney's determination that the new corporation was a successor entity, explaining if the old
corporation was being dissolved and had no property or liabilities the new corporation was not a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 11
successor entity. The City of Carnation's consent agenda includes a contract for Sharon Rice, a new entity
that required a new contract.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented although it was a new year, there were old issues such as REST
money, bonds issues and the REST funds. He referred to a statement by the Finance Director last month
that a payment was made on the bond issue; however, he had been unable to locate a record of when that
payment was made, what fund it was taken from, and what bank account was used for the payment.
(Councilmember Wilson left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.)
11. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SNOHOMISH
COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA.
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton introduced Doug Bartells,
Holiday Inn, Everett, representing the Snohomish County Lodging Association; and Keith Lander, Best
Western Cascadia, who were present to answer questions.
The Council packet contains a letter from Snohomish County Councilmember Dave Gossett requesting on
behalf of the Snohomish County Council that the City Council approve the Interlocal Agreement
authorizing establishment of the Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area. Enabling legislation was
approved by the Washington State Legislature in 2003 authorizing cities and counties to create tourism
promotion areas where a lodging charge could be collected to promote tourism within the promotion area.
This information was presented to the Finance Committee on December 14, 2010.
The Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) is a self- funding mechanism whereby a $1 /night fee is collected
from lodging facilities with 50+ rooms. The funds are collected by the Department of Revenue who
returns the funds to the TPA. The TPA uses the funds for general promotion of tourism within Snohomish
County, marketing of convention and tradeshows that benefit local tourism and lodging businesses within
Snohomish County, marketing of Snohomish County to the travel industry to benefit local tourism and
marketing of Snohomish County to recruit sporting events to benefit local tourism and lodging businesses
within Snohomish County. The Council packet also contains a fiscal impact statement; there is no fiscal
impact to Edmonds from the formation of the TPA.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Clifton advised he would be the liaison on the Snohomish County
Tourism Promotion Area Board for Edmonds.
Mr. Clifton reported he contacted representatives of the Edmonds Harbor Inn, the only lodging facility in
Edmonds that will collect the fee, and they are supportive of the Interlocal Agreement.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF EDMONDS AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SNOHOMISH
COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmembers Fraley - Monillas and Wilson were not present for the vote.)
12. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON SOUND TRANSIT CITY OF EDMONDS AND
COMMUNITY TRANSIT - TERM SHEET AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
Mr. Clifton explained in January 2010 the City Council approved an Interlocal Agreement and a
Development Agreement related to the Sound Transit commuter rail station. The Development
Agreement listed the amenities that would be included within the Sound Transit commuter rail station.
The Interlocal Agreement granted the non - exclusive right to Sound Transit to use the right -of -way in
addition to establishing that Sound Transit would own, operate and maintain the entire commuter rail
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 12
station. Section 10.1 of the Interlocal Agreement and Section 11.2 of the Development Agreement
anticipated the possible assignment of the rights and obligations of Sound Transit related to ownership,
maintenance, operation and responsibilities.
Although Sound Transit funded construction of the commuter rail station which includes a Community
Transit bus transit area, they are asking Community Transit to own, operate and maintain that portion. He
displayed a site plan identifying that area. The Interlocal Agreement identifies the responsibilities of
Community Transit. A Term Sheet was reviewed by the Finance Committee on December 14; at that
time Community Transit had not yet signed the Term Sheet. The Term Sheet established the terms that
would be included in the Interlocal Agreement and describes the transit center portion. The Council
packet contains the Term Sheet and the signed Interlocal Agreement. City Council approval of the Term
Sheet and the Interlocal Agreement will authorize Mayor Cooper to sign both documents which will then
be forwarded to Sound Transit to execute both agreements.
Section 3 of the Interlocal Agreement references Sound Transit as the guarantor for ensuring Community
Transit fulfills the obligations related to owning, maintaining and operating the facility. If Community
Transit were unable to fulfill their responsibilities, Sound Transit would resume responsibility.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE TERM SHEET AND
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmembers Fraley - Monillas and Wilson were not present for the vote.)
14. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BOND REFUNDING.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines commented during the bond advisors' December 14 presentation, they
identified the four bond issues that could be refunded.
Councilmember Petso asked for confirmation that the Public Safety Reserve Fund contains approximately
$1.3 million. Mr. Hines answered yes. Councilmember Petso commented those funds were primarily from
the proceeds of the sale of fire apparatus. Mr. Hines explained the funds were from the sale of fire
apparatus and funds left over in the 511 Fund designated for Fire.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Fire District 1 contract. Table G1 shows the City was to
receive approximately $1.4 million for rolling stock. She asked whether the City received that amount.
Mr. Hines answered the City received that amount but it was offset by the approximately $800,000 sick
leave payout. He had intended to provide the Council a reconciliation but had been unable to do so due to
working on the 2011 budget. He will provide the reconciliation in the near future.
Mayor Cooper pointed out the Mayor and staff's recommendation is to refund the bonds that the bond
advisors suggested, the four listed in the agenda memo. Whichever bonds the Council authorizes to have
refunded, staff would return with an ordinance to take that action.
Councilmember Petso asked what action was required if the Council chose to pay off the City Hall
portion of the one bond rather than refund it. Mr. Hines asked if the Council wished to refund the
remainder of the bond issue. Councilmember Petso assumed so. Mr. Hines explained the portion of the
bond related to the City Hall would be paid off and the remainder refunded. Staff would return with an
ordinance refunding the remainder. He suggested Council action to authorize the payment.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
REFUND THE BONDS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MAYOR AND STAFF:
1) 1998 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS
2) 1998 LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 13
3) 2001 LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
4) 2001B LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CITY HALL PORTION OF THE 1998 . LTGO BOND AND TO
PAY THAT WITH THE PROCEEDS IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY RESERVE FUND.
Councilmember Bernheim explained the City would save money by refunding the bonds. By using cash
reserves to pay off the City Hall bonds, the fund from which the City Hall bonds are paid will be able to
accumulate cash that can be used for park acquisition purposes. The availability of those funds would
allow the City to attract funds from state and federal sources and continue to expand the City's parks.
Council President Peterson asked the dollar amount of the bond payoff. Mr. Hines answered $1.3 million.
Council President Peterson supported refunding the bonds but felt it was reckless to use over $1 million in
reserve funds in this economy. He provided the analogy of paying down one's mortgage, usually a good
idea, but not if a person was unsure if they would have a paycheck in the future. There was uncertainty in
the City's future revenues and he did not agree with spending any of the City's reserves, especially over
$1 million. He did not support the motion.
Councilmember Plunkett noted Council President Peterson made a good point, but the funds from the sale
of fire equipment and additional funds related to the Fire Department were never intended to be used for
operations. The Public Safety Reserve funds were always intended to be used for capital expenses only.
Paying off the bond would create flexibility in the capital program with regard to parks, walkways and
perhaps other projects that do not currently exist. In this real estate market, it may be necessary to move
quickly on vulnerable, available property; distressed properties can be purchased at bargain prices.
Possibilities have arisen in the past and he assumed others would arise in the future. This is a good time to
be flexible and have funds available to take advantage of the distressed real estate market.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern that the Council had not received financials but she
supported the use of assets for assets and the funds in the Public Safety Reserve Fund were from the sale
of fire assets. She supported freeing up those funds so that the funds projected to be received from BEET
could be used to make park purchases.
Council President Peterson agreed with the premise of capital for capital. However, there are other capital
expenses the City has not paid for years. He suggested the deferred maintenance schedule for City
buildings should be considered capital projects. He suggested the Edmonds Center for the Arts, a historic
building, as an example of a City -owned building in serious need of repair. He found it short sighted to
pay off City Hall bonds to free up money to buy parks when maintenance of buildings that the City
already owns need to be addressed. He found it remarkable that the Council would agree to move forward
when the finances are not clear to some Councilmembers. He did not agree with using over $1 million in
this economic climate to pay off bonds that did not need to be paid off. He agreed with limiting the use of
the Public Safety Reserve Fund to capital expenses, summarizing there were a lot of capital expenses that
need to be addressed long before those funds were used to pay off bonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained under the current policy, the first $750,000 of REET is used for
park acquisition and the remainder for streets. If the City Hall bonds are paid off, she suggested lowering
the amount used for park acquisition to $500,000 and allocating the remainder for streets. She noted the
REET funds are currently used primarily for debt service. She acknowledged her frustration with the
numbers but was willing to move forward.
Councilmember Petso clarified it was the Council's current policy to use REET for park acquisition but
that policy could be changed by a majority vote of the Council. She recognized there would be multiple
uses suggested for those funds if the policy were changed. The motion was to pay off the City Hall bonds
so that the revenue was freed up for other uses. This has the added benefit of saving a great deal of
interest over the next four years.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 14
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Edmonds Center for the Arts is likely already in the Parks and
Cultural Arts Comprehensive Plan and it was possible that building could benefit from those funds if the
Council chose. There was more flexibility in the use of those funds than purchasing open space and
creating traditional parks.
MOTION CARRIED (4 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. (Councilmembers
Fraley - Monillas and Wilson were not present for the vote.)
15. DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING CITY ATTORNEY APPLICANTS.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the Council has had an opportunity to review the applications. The
purpose of this item is to discuss the procedure for reviewing City Attorney applicants.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO INTERVIEW OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, GRANT WEED AND GARY MCLEAN.
Mayor Cooper assumed the Council intended to follow the process outlined in the City Code, that the
interview committee includes the Mayor. Councilmember Bernheim answered it was his intention for the
committee to include the Mayor. He disagreed with Mayor Cooper's characterization of the existing code;
the existing code refers to including the Mayor in the context of a procedure that has since been repealed.
He anticipated the interviews would be conducted similar to the way Council and Mayor applicants were
interviewed.
Mayor Cooper explained his intent was to avoid any problems with not following the process as described
in the code. He pointed out Councilmember Bernheim has introduced an amendment to remove the
Mayor from the process. The process as stated in the current code even with the portion that was repealed
requires a committee, which could be the entire Council that includes the Mayor to narrow the applicants
to three which are then interviewed by the full Council. He asked City Clerk Sandy Chase whether that
was her understanding of the code. Ms. Chase answered agreed with Mayor Cooper's understanding but
was not prepared to respond further.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to the language in the code that states the City Council shall utilize the
consultant selection process established by Chapter 2.8. That chapter has been repealed. He clarified his
motion was simply that the committee interview the three attorneys /firms. Mayor Cooper reiterated he
wanted to prevent a problem in the future if the Council did not follow the City code. He noted that Mr.
Snyder is in a difficult position to advise on this matter because his law firm was one of the firms
applying for the position.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
ADD THE LIGHTHOUSE GROUP TO THE LIST OF ATTORNEYS TO BE INTERVIEWED.
Mayor Cooper relayed three questions /assumptions previously posed to Mr. Snyder:
1. Does the Mayor serve on a Council committee as a participant?
2. The Mayor does not get to select the Councilmembers who participate in the selection process.
3. The Council has the authority to make the final decision.
Mr. Snyder's response to those questions was they were correct, as we discussed the Council needs to
appoint the committee. Nothing in the policy or rules that indicates how that is done. The committee
could include the entire Council and the Mayor or only a small group of Councilmembers and the Mayor.
He noted if the entire Council participated, the meetings would need to be public. He did not object to the
law firms that Councilmember Bernheim and Councilmember Petso recommended be interviewed, he
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 15
wanted to be certain that the interview committee included the Mayor. He recognized the Council would
then deliberate and make the selection.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Mayor Cooper was suggesting the Council not make an initial
cut with regard to which attorneys /firms to interview. Mayor Cooper answered the Council and he had
reviewed the 11 responses the City received and narrowing the law firms to be interviewed was
appropriate. He offered his and the Human Resources Department's assistance to Council President
Peterson with scheduling interviews, drafting questions, etc. He clarified the interview committee was
eight people and deliberations were conducted by seven.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM ACCEPTED COUNCILMEMBER PETSO'S AMENDMENT
TO ADD THE LIGHTHOUSE GROUP AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION.
Mayor Cooper restated the motion as follows:
TO INTERVIEW OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, GRANT WEED, GARY MCLEAN AND THE
LIGHTHOUSE GROUP.
Council President Peterson invited Councilmembers to inform him if they wanted to interview another
attorney /firm.
Councilmember Bernheim requested the interviews be scheduled within the next month. Mayor Cooper
offered to work with Council President Peterson on scheduling interviews if he wished. He suggested
scheduling an hour to interview each law firm. Ms. Chase advised a two hour agenda item to interview
City Attorney candidates was tentatively scheduled on January 18. Mayor Cooper anticipated
interviewing four law firms would require more than two hours.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested consideration be given to meeting during the day and not having all
the interviews occur at one meeting.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmembers Fraley- Monillas and Wilson were not
present for the vote.)
16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper offered his congratulations and thanks to Councilmember Bernheim for his service as
Council President last year. Having had the opportunity to work with him since July, he acknowledged
they have had some spirited discussions. He admired the work Councilmember Bernheim did as Council
President, recognizing that a great deal had been accomplished including leading the Council through the
appointment of two Councilmembers and a Mayor and serving as the interim Mayor.
Mayor Cooper reported 40 years ago Washington State brought the first high school cultural exchange
wrestling team from Japan. Tomorrow night, the Japanese National High School Team will be in
Washington again for the 40t' consecutive year and compete at Mountlake Terrace High School at 7:30
against schools in the Wesco division. This is a good opportunity to see wrestling as well as participate in
a cultural exchange event. He will host the coaches in his office tomorrow afternoon for a tour of City
facilities and discussion about Edmonds.
17. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis congratulated Council President Peterson for his selection as Council
President and thanked Councilmember Bernheim for serving as Council President. She noted
Councilmember Bernheim and she had also had spirited conversations and she learned a great deal from
him.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 16
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the survey that Councilmember Wilson distributed that includes
questions about a levy, reverse annexation and a Regional Fire Authority. She explained the 2010 Citizen
Levy Committee continues its work. During the next month the Committee will be reviewing other cities'
monthly budget summaries such as Redmond's which provide actuals numbers versus budget versus
expenditures and net figures. The intent of the Committee is to promote a short and concise message why
a levy is needed, clarity of financials and the support of Council and staff members to promote the
message. As Mayor Cooper stated in the newspaper, staff has not been withholding information. She
agreed staff had been inundated but she had 25+ emails of which only 2 had been answered by Finance.
She remarked all other staff members have responded promptly to her inquiries. She was hopeful answers
could be provided this year.
Council President Peterson wished everyone a Happy New Year. He thanked Councilmembers for their
vote of confidence in selecting him as Council President; he looked forward to a busy year. There are
several major topics facing the Council including a levy, a Regional Fire Authority as well as other City
business. He looked forward to open communication and good dialogue between the Council, staff, and
the community.
Councilmember Bernheim thanked the Council for allowing him to serve as Council President. He
expressed special thanks to Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton for
providing top notch information, Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman for her invaluable
assistance in preparing materials and informing him what needed to be done, and City Clerk Sandy Chase
who single handedly keeps everything moving.
Student Representative Gibson echoed Mayor Cooper's comments about the Japanese wrestling team.
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 17