10/25/2005 City CouncilOctober 25, 2005
Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview candidates for the Historic Preservation
Commission, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 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
Richard Marin, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Bowker, Intern
Molly Thomson, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Douglas Fair, Municipal Court Judge
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator
Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Orvis requested Item H be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve (A) ROLL CALL
out
°s
rnutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2005.
Mi
Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #83136 THROUGH #83316 FOR THE WEEK OF
Checks OCTOBER 17, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $485,559.58. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #42000 THROUGH #42056 FOR THE PERIOD
OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 15, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $661,268.83.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 1
Claim for
Damages (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM NINA AFANASENKO
Community ($2,000.00), MICHAEL & MEGAN MCMURRAY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND
Services Dept. MARGIE GURTNER ($4,320.33).
Report
Economic (E) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT.
Development
Dept. Report (F) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT.
Approve L-5 (G) APPROVAL OF L -5 SALARY SURVEY FOR NON - REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES.
Salary Survev
Res# 1110 (I) RESOLUTION NO. 1110 COMMENDING MOLLY THOMSON AS STUDENT COUNCIL
Commend REPRESENTATIVE.
Student Rep,
Item H: Proposed Ordinance Amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to Adopt a New
Chapter 16.77 MPOR — Master Planned Office- Residential, and Amending the Provisions of Section
21.40.030 Height.
Councilmember Orvis advised he planned to vote no on this item as it allowed taller buildings on Sunset
and would change the way height was measured. He displayed a drawing illustrating the point where
height would be measured under the current regulations and with the new regulations, pointing out the
new method of measuring height would result in a taller building.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM H.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled he had voted against this twice before and would vote against it a third
time because it resulted in buildings that were too tall. He pointed out as a result of the upcoming
election, there could be 1 -3 new Councilmembers and insofar as this ordinance would affect the future, he
preferred the new Councilmembers be allowed to make the decision. Therefore he requested Mayor
Haakenson veto the ordinance within the next ten days to allow the new Councilmembers to participate in
the vote.
Councilmember Dawson advised she would vote against this ordinance as she had voted against this
proposal in the past because it would create taller buildings and a unique way of measuring building
height in this area. She explained measuring 25 feet from the sidewalk would result in a building that was
taller than a 30 foot building measured via the current method. She urged Councilmembers to reconsider
their vote.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, OLSON AND WILSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
Ord# 3569 PLUNKETT, DAWSON AND ORVIS OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows:
MPOR —
Master Planned (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3569 - AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Office CODE TO ADOPT A NEW CHAPTER 16.77 MPOR — MASTER PLANNED OFFICE -
Residential RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 21.40.030,
HEIGHT.
Historic 3. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS OF CHRISTINE DEINER -KARR AND ROB
Preservation VAN TASSELL TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Commission
Appointments Steve Waite, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission, introduced Christine Deiner -Karr and Rob
Van Tassell and briefly described their backgrounds. He noted Mr. Deiner -Karr and Mr. Van Tassell
would add diversity to the Commission and help the City with its future vision based on its past.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF ROB VAN TASSELL AND CHRISTINE
DEINER -KARR TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Student
Representative 4. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE MOLLY THOMSON.
Molly Thomson
Council President Marin presented a resolution to Student Representative Molly Thomson in recognition
of her service as Student Representative from September 6 through October 25, 2005 and extending the
Council and Mayor's best wishes for her future endeavors. Ms. Thomson thanked the Mayor and Council
for making her feel welcome and for the opportunity to serve as Student Representative.
Update on 5. UPDATE ON EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT BY SUPERINTENDENT NICK BROISSOIT.
Edmonds
School District
Nick Broissoit, Edmonds School District Superintendent, introduced Mark Dillon, a member of the
Citizens Planning Committee, and Shawn McLosh, Citizens for Schools. Mr. Broissoit explained the
State did not fully fund public schools and most communities passed a local program and operations levy
as a way to maintain local support for schools. In the Edmonds School District, for every dollar spent,
approximately 86 cents paid for the salaries and benefits of staff and the remaining 14 cents paid for
operational costs. He noted in the Edmonds School District, the local program and operations levy
represented approximately 20 cents of every dollar spent.
Mr. Broissoit described Proposition 1 on the February 7, 2006 ballot which would replace the existing
local program and operations levy that will expire at the end of 2006. He explained a 60% majority was
required to replace the levy with another 4 -year levy. The rate of the existing levy was $2.07 per $1,000
of assessed valuation; the replacement levy starts at $2.00 per $1,000 and at the end of four years would
be down to $1.75 per $1,000. He acknowledged the levy was not free nor was it an increase; it only
replaced the tax that residents were currently paying and was essential to maintain programs and services
at their current level.
He referred to the informational brochure that would be sent to all Edmonds School District residents in
mid - November and that was also available on the Edmonds School District website, pointing out the
staffing, programs and services that the replacement levy funded. He referred to contact information in
the brochure.
Mr. Broissoit described Proposition 2, a bond issue that also required a 60% super majority to pass. He
explained the difference between a levy and a bond; in a levy taxes collected were spent to support
ongoing operations, and a bond was the voters authorizing the Edmonds School District to issue bonds, in
this instance for $140 million. If the District was able to issue these bonds and relocate Lynnwood High
School to the District's North Road property (a mile east of the current Lynnwood High School site) and
move the bus barn, the District could enter into a long -term ground lease for the Lynnwood High School
and bus barn properties. The long term ground lease would allow the District to generate revenue from
the properties to offset the cost of future capital projects.
He referred to details in the brochure regarding projects to be funded via the $140 million bond,
explaining if the bond issue were approved by voters, the District could accomplish $280 million in
improvements. The capital proposal was the result of a lengthy public process to develop the best way to
maximize improvements, minimize the cost to the taxpayer and make the best use of existing resources.
The projects listed in the brochure were in priority order and represented years of work by the Citizen
Planning Committee to identify the highest priorities. He recalled the District has tried twice before to
replace Lynnwood High School and had been unable to attain the 60% super majority.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 3
Mr. Broissoit referred to a chart in the brochure that illustrated the impact of the levy and bond on
taxpayers. The existing pre -2006 bonds, existing program and operations levy, and technology levy
equated to a total combined tax paid to Edmonds School District of $4.00 per $1,000 or $1200 annually
for a house valued at $300,000. He referred to a second chart that illustrated the rate if both Proposition 1
and 2 were to pass, noting the tax rate per $1,000 for the bonds would change each year based on when
the District sold the bonds. The construction schedule and sale of the bonds needed to do the work would
be spread over a period of years reducing the overall impact to the taxpayer over the life of the bond. He
noted when voters authorized any District financial issue, the dollar amount was divided over the total
assessed valuation which determined the rate per $1,000. Therefore as total assessed valuation increased,
on an average of 7 -8% per year, the base increased as a result of new construction and reassessments.
Using a house with a valuation of $300,000 and assuming that house increased in value to $400,000 in six
years, the tax rate paid to the Edmonds School District would be reduced to $3.00 per $1,000 of assessed
valuation or the same $1200 per year. He concluded in most cases, if citizens approved both Proposition
1 and 2, their taxes would not increase over what they currently paid and would likely be the same or
slightly less in the fixture. Citizens could vote in support of the proposition and not increase their personal
taxes to the District but maintain the existing rate and allow the District to maintain programs and
operations and continue with capital project needs.
Shawn McLosh, Citizens for Schools, encouraged citizens to vote yes in the February election. She
invited the Council individually and as a group to make a public statement in the future in support of the
bond and levy. She offered to speak at a future meeting if the Council chose to pursue that action.
Municipal
Court Judge 6. MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE ANNUAL REPORT
Annual Report
Doug Fair, Edmonds Municipal Court Judge, provided a report regarding Court Operations, Alternative
Confinement, Probation Services, Staff Development and Education, Public Outreach, and 2006 Goals.
He pointed out filings in 2005 were down as compared to the previous three years, an issue that was
outside the court's control as filings were affected by budgeting, staffing, prioritization and court
decisions. Filings have been down since 2001, the same time period that the City has been struggling
with staffing and budget issues. To illustrate the impact one police officer had on the filings, he pointed
out in the Parking Enforcement Officer's first two weeks, she issued approximately 200 parking tickets as
compared to only 600 issued during the entire year of 2005. He projected filings of approximately 5,000
in 2006 due to the hiring of three new Police Officers, the new Parking Enforcement Officer and recent
changes in State statutes.
Judge Fair referred to Appendix B that illustrated revenues from January to September 2005 of $519,140
from fines and forfeitures. He clarified the amount remitted to the City was $346,922 as approximately
1/3 of every dollar went to the State for State mandated assessments.
Judge Fair explained in 2003 the Supreme Court ruled the Driving with License Suspended statute
unconstitutional. That statute had allowed the Department of Licensing (DOL) to revoke the license of
those who did not pay their tickets. Once the Supreme Court declared the statute unconstitutional, DOL
no longer had that authority which resulted in a downturn in the payment of tickets because there was no
incentive to pay tickets. In July 2005, the statute was amended to allow the DOL to again suspend
licenses for unpaid traffic tickets which he anticipated would result in an increase in revenue collected.
He anticipated even with increased revenue from parking tickets and traffic infractions, the court would
miss its revenue projections in 2005 by approximately $180,000 or 26 -27 %, not uncommon in courts of
limited jurisdiction throughout the State. The 2005 revenue forecast may have anticipated the legislature
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 4
would correct the statute earlier in the year. His 2006 budget reflected reduced revenue projections of
approximately $100,000. He anticipated the remaining $80,000 shortfall next year could be realized via
increased payment of traffic infractions and increased parking tickets.
Judge Fair referred to Appendix C, an Expenditure Status Report from January 1 through September 30,
2005, noting the court was at approximately 77% of expenses and should be at or below projections by
the end of the year.
Judge Fair commented on the local access to passports the court provides to citizens and the Court
Security Officer the Council approved for the remainder of the year. He described alternative
confinement methods, explaining home detention, community service and work release provided valuable
alternatives to the City paying to house an offender. He estimated the court saved the City over $94,000
via community service and home detention. He described probation services that may include the use of a
handheld breath alcohol - analyzing device which he displayed. He also displayed a home detention
monitoring device that tracked an offender via GPS and monitored alcohol content in the offender's skin.
He described staff development and education opportunities provided to the court staff and displayed an
information brochure developed by the court to educate the public on the court's history, policies and
procedures. In an effort to determine what areas of the system could be improved, a juror survey was also
developed. Judge Fair described goals for 2006 that include improved public access and awareness and
public outreach.
Prosecutor 7. PROSECUTOR ANNUAL REPORT
nnua) Report
Prosecutor James Zachor advised their firm began as interim prosecutors in April 2004 and in April 2005
they were awarded the contract to provide prosecution services. He introduced Prosecutor Melanie
Thomas Dane. Referring to Judge Fair's comments, he stated one of their biggest problems with DUI
prosecutions was that over half the courts in the State this year and last year determined the statute with
regard to proving the breath test in DUI cases was unconstitutional. He noted they convinced most courts
to revert to the old system so that DUI prosecutions could continue.
Mr. Zachor advised their firm had expanded, adding additional staff and a fourth attorney. He
commented on the increase in the number and intensity of domestic violence cases. He was pleased with
Judge Fair's approach to instigating no contact orders and expressed his appreciation to the Council for
hiring Megan Sweeney, Domestic Violence Coordinator, who assists them in preparing cases and acts as
an advocate for victims.
Ms. Thomas Dane invited Councilmembers to visit court on Wednesdays and alternate Fridays. She
noted Judge Fair and court staff had assisted them in more effectively arranging their court calendars to
avoid long wait times. She noted although there had been a decline in the number of filings, the number
of severe cases such as DUI and domestic violence had increased.
Public 8. PUBLIC DEFENDER ANNUAL REPORT
Defender
Annual Report James Feldman, Public Defender, concurred with the continents by Mr. Zachor and Ms. Thomas Dane
regarding the increase in the significance and difficulty of cases. He advised that due to the volume of
cases, two attorneys now appear at pretrial and arraignment hearings.
9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Friends of the
Library Book Laurie Dressler, Edmonds, President, Friends of the Edmonds Library, described the efforts of the
Sale Friends to support the Edmonds library literacy and information science education. She reported the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 5
Friends had spent more than $250,000 in the past 25 years in support of the library and scholarship
funding. She described items the Friends fund for the benefit of the Edmonds library including plants and
fish, children's and summer reading programs, books, shelving, furniture, supplies, etc. and most recently
a large, colorful, visible sign for each street side of the library. She advised the funding for these items
came from the sale of books and she invited the public to the annual donated book sale at the Frances
Anderson Center on October 29 from 9 :00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m.
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, stated there were a handful of developers whose motto was "ask forgiveness not
Development permission" and they found this approach to be the most profitable to the detriment of the citizenry. She
Concerns
cited recent incidents such as removal of trees and neglecting to include promised open space, noting
unless the Edmonds Planning Department did its job, next would be the destruction of wetlands. She
recalled citizens expressing disappointment with the new building at 5th and Walnut at the September 6,
2005 Council meeting, specifically the location of the promised open space and how that building was
allowed. She quoted the City Attorney's statement from the minutes of that meeting that any staff
decision that is subject to LUPA and is not appealed by citizens, becomes final and the city cannot revoke
or overturn it. She clarified apparently it was not the Planning Department's job who had the education
and background to monitor a plethora of interconnecting federal, state, county and local rules and
regulations, instead it was the citizens' responsibility. She relayed a request by her neighbors and she that
the Planning Department require Theusen Homes, Inc. who intended to develop on property with an
isolated wetland to contact the Army Corp. of Engineers and the State Department of Ecology (DOE) and
obtain approval for the project before the Planning Department issued their approval. This was in an
effort to avoid an appeal, a lengthy adversarial process requiring time and energy of private citizens, city
government and the City Council. She provided a letter from the State DOE stating Theusen Homes was
responsible for notifying the Army Corp. of Engineers and DOE regarding the wetland determination.
She provided a letter from a wetland ecologist that addressed federal and state jurisdictions. She
requested (1) consideration by the Planning Department of the Theusen Homes, Inc. application be halted
until approval from federal and state agencies was obtained and (2) the City provide the name of the staff
member who would be responsible for making that happen. The Mayor advised he would consider Ms.
Bloom's request tomorrow and at her request, call her with his response.
2005 Election Bruce Nicholson, Edmonds, read a letter from his wife and him, regarding the upcoming election of City
Councilmembers. Noting they were not developers or business owners and were not motivated by
financial gain and/or hidden agenda items, he explained their vested interest was as long term residents of
the Edmonds community and interest in helping the City and community financial stability and quality of
lifestyle. He provided examples of their past involvement in the community. He commented if some
Council regulars put as much energy and focus into helping the Council and City succeed as they did in
demeaning individual staff members and members of the Council, the City would likely benefit
significantly. He noted this was not a single issue campaign regarding building heights, pointing out all
recently constructed buildings conformed to the code including with regard to height. The City was at a
crossroads of decision - making that could potentially have a significant financial impact on the community
and residents' well being. The City was at risk of putting Edmonds residents' public safety at risk if
officials that addressed all issues were not elected including the economic health of the community. He
and his wife encouraged the public to study the candidates' platforms and vote for the most qualified.
Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Nicholson not to comment on individual candidates in this forum.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, began reading from a campaign flyer he received in the mail; an exchange
followed where Mayor Haakenson reminded Mr. Martin that the audience comment portion of the agenda
MPOR was not a campaign forum. Mr. Martin stated his objection to Councilmember Wilson's vote tonight to
Ordinance
approve the MPOR on Sunset as it would result in a "big, huge building on Sunset Avenue." He
commented Councilmember Wilson had made statements that he supported the height limits in place
since 1980 to retain the character of Edmonds; however, this was not supported by his vote tonight which
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 6
would result in a tall building on Sunset. He referred to a motion supported by Councilmembers Marin,
ssua;ng xeight Moore, Olson and Wilson on June 14, 2005 that would allow an area downtown to achieve heights of 33
feet with incentives. He referred to the July 26, 2005 minutes that indicated Councilmember Wilson
joined Councilmembers Marin, Olson and Moore in rejecting the 1980 style building heights, the same
building height he supported in a recent campaign flyer. He asserted Councilmember Wilson intended to
vote in a manner that was in opposition to the majority of citizens of Edmonds.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the item pulled from the Consent Agenda regarding the MPOR
alcu la
New Method of
ting which included a new method of calculating building heights. Although he heard protests by three
C
Building Height Councilmembers, one of the Councilmembers seeking election voted in favor of that item which Mr.
Hertrich asserted was a vote for higher building heights. He expressed concern with the lies and half -
truths in this year's Council campaigning, finding it the worst he had ever seen. He recalled a former
Councilmember who was often absent from the Council, noting a Councilmember who was not present at
meetings did not represent the citizenry well. He recalled the effort he made as a Councilmember to
accommodate Council meetings in his business travel schedule. He noted one Council candidate had
missed four meetings in two months and further expanding his business travel would result in his having
less time to do his job as a Councilmember. He suggested Councilmembers should relinquish a Council
position due to job conflicts.
Mayor Haakenson remarked people often ask why quality candidates did not run for public office.
Tonight was the classic example why — because there was no reason anyone should have to sit on the
Council and listen to this type of commentary about the job they were doing. He noted just because
Councilmembers were elected officials did not give citizens the right to speak in this manner. He further
commented candidates' supporters were an indication of the type of person the candidate was.
2006 Budget 10. 2006 BUDGET WORK SESSION
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements provided an overview of the 2006 budget, recalling the
October 11 Finance Committee meeting included discussion regarding the property tax ordinance and the
use of banked capacity in the 2006 budget. He noted the Mayor presented his budget address on October
18 and paper /electronic copies of the budget were posed on the web. The budget workshop is scheduled
at this time and a public hearing on the budget and revenues is scheduled for November 1.
Mr. Clements reported the total budget is $66.4 million, a 4.8% decrease from 2005. The General Fund
budget is $29.5 million, a 5.7% increase or only a 3.1% increase without consideration of the change in
how debt service is accounted for on the voter approved public safety bonds. He explained there were no
new taxes or fees in the proposed budget; however, two changes in taxes /fees were proposed — the use of
property tax banked capacity of approximately $285,000 and a 9% stormwater increase that would be
offset by a decrease in sewer rates. Mr. Clements explained the property tax banked capacity represented
approximately $3 per month or $36 per year for a $500,000 home.
With regard to major 2006 budget initiatives, Mr. Clements highlighted the two - person Street Crime Unit
and Police Officer replacement to be hired mid -year, Fire Battalion Chief, and Court Security Officer. He
highlighted one -time expenditures including the Zoning Code update, temporary Building Inspector,
police vehicle and vest replacements, police portable radios, cashiering system and Parks' on -line
registration. At Council President Marin's request he described $608,900 in base budget reductions in the
2006 budget, $232,000 in the General Fund budget, and $276,000 in other funds. Decision packages
submitted by departments totaled $1.4 million, $654,000 were recommended for funding, a reduction of
$726,000.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 7
Mr. Clements displayed pie charts illustrating the composition of revenues and expenditures in the $66.4
million budget, pointing out taxes comprised only 39% of the total budget and personnel comprised 38%
of total expenditures. He displayed pie charts illustrating the composition of revenues and expenditures in
the $29.5 million General Fund, pointing out taxes comprised 75% of the budget with property taxes of
$11.7 million and sales tax of $5.5 million with personnel costs comprising 71% of expenditures. He
noted one of the trends Edmonds as well as other jurisdictions have encountered was the transfer of
resources from the total budget to public safety. He noted in the recommended budget, public safety
comprised 56% of the General Fund budget; in 1990 public safety comprised 42.7 %.
He displayed the distribution of property tax dollars. Out of each dollar collected, 61 cents goes to
schools, 17% cents to the City and voter approved bonds, 4.3 cents to EMS, 6.94 cents to the Port and
hospital districts, and 9.9 cents to Snohomish County. He displayed a graph of future budget projections
noting the forecast was satisfactory until 2008 with banked capacity and sales tax sourcing; however
without those funding sources and adding the public safety positions, the City budget was in precarious
position in the future. He recalled in preparing the 2006 budget, there was discussion regarding the need
for offsetting cuts or additional revenue sources to support any new positions.
Mr. Clements reviewed the 2006 budget adoption schedule, advising it was possible to adopt the budget
November 1 following the public hearing or November 7 if there was a full Council meeting; the current
schedule is for budget adoption at the November 15 meeting.
Councilmember Moore asked for examples of items that were not funded in the 2006 budget. Mr.
Clements offered to provide a list of items cut from the budget. He noted overall staffing was down about
9% from 2000 levels. He referred to the 1% per year property tax increase, noting operating costs
increased more than that each year.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Clements identified decision packages funded in the budget and
identified where in the budget the ending cash balances were reflected. Councilmember Plunkett asked
where in the budget the fiber optic technology initiative was described, what was funded, and what
outsourcing management lease fees were. Mr. Clements explained the $175,000 cost was construction
and engineering costs to bring the fiber from Seattle to Edmonds and connect to the fiber optic cable that
WSDOT provided from the ferry terminal to Hwy. 99. Once the fiber optic network was completed, City
telephone service at the Public Works building would be connected to the fiber to reduce costs and the
City could lease this asset to another company who could use it to offer internet services, etc.
Mr. Clements clarified there was not an appropriation in the 2006 budget for the fiber optic technology
initiative; he anticipated a recommendation would be made to the Council within the next month. He
explained the funds for this expenditure would be from the contract to manage the system. He noted the
initiative was referenced in the budget so that it would not be a surprise to the Council.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether detection loops at the intersection of 226th and SR -104 were
funded in the budget, noting the right lane facing east did not have a detection loop which required drivers
to wait until the light was activated by vehicles traveling in the opposite direction. He recalled Traffic
Engineer Darrell Smith estimated the cost at $800 - $1500. City Engineer Dave Gebert advised there were
no funds in the Fund 112 budget for citywide signal improvements. Councilmember Plunkett requested
staff consider that project.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about e- connect for Parks. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh
answered it was for on -line registration.
Council President Marin commented this was the third year he participated in the budget process where
the directors presented their decision packages to the Mayor and Committee for review and scrutiny. This
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 8
year was no easier than the first two years he participated, partially because he could appreciate staff's
restraint in proposing decision packages. He acknowledged it was painful to cut items from the budget
and equally painful as a taxpayer to vote to increase taxes, yet his increased awareness made it evident
these were items the City really needed. He expressed his appreciation to the Directors and their staffs,
administrative staff and Mayor Haakenson for developing what he believed was a very good budget.
Councilmember Dawson asked what the $140,000 for the Zoning Code update included and why it was
necessary to do it now. Development Services Director Bowman commented he had been describing the
need to update the Zoning Code since he was hired in 2000. The update would be a 2 -year process; the
$140,000 would be used to hire a consultant to assist with developing the rewrite of the code. He noted
even the simple Zoning Code amendments the City's limited staff has developed recently have consumed
a great deal of time; therefore it was necessary to have the update outsourced. He acknowledged there
would need to be further discussion with the Council regarding policy before the rewrite began. The
City's code dated to the 1980s and piecemeal amendments make it difficult to use and administer.
Councilmember Dawson asked how the $140,000 cost was determined. Mr. Bowman answered that was
staff's estimate of the cost to rewrite the code. He recalled the cost to rewrite the Critical Areas
Ordinance with the assistance of a consultant was $100,000.
Councilmember Dawson asked why the proposal was for a temporary Building Inspector, why that
position was needed now and how much of the cost would be offset by revenue. Mr. Bowman answered
there had been a substantial amount of revenue collected recently from construction activity. If Pt.
Edwards continued developing in the same manner, two additional buildings would be constructed next
year. If the Esperance annexation is approved, there will likely be construction activity in that area as
well. He noted the Washington Survey and Ratings Bureau gave the city a good rating, however, one of
their negative comments was the number of inspections the Building Inspector was doing. He noted
Building Inspectors were at a premium; he anticipated hiring a Building Inspector and notifying him/her it
was a temporary position. In that way if permit submittals slowed and revenues dropped off, the position
could be eliminated. If construction activities continued in 2006 with associated revenues, he noted it was
likely staff would request an extension of the temporary position for 2007.
Building Official Jeannine Graf advised in 2004, the average was 17 building inspections per day; in 2005
the average was 22 inspections per day. She recalled the Washington Survey and Ratings Bureau advised
in a City of Edmonds' size, a Building Inspector should only conduct 12 building inspections per day.
She concluded the City was pushing the Building Inspector to the limit and often the Plans Inspector had
to be pulled from the office to assist the Field Inspector to meet the demand for building inspections.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether there had been any discussion about raising fees to cover the cost
of inspections. Mr. Bowman advised the City tried to maintain fees at a level that covered costs. He
preferred not to hire permanent staff until there was sufficient ongoing revenue. He noted there were a
number of cities utilizing temporary Building Inspectors.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the proposal to fund the Administrative Fire Battalion Chief from
savings in the Fire Department. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg advised this proposal was to address long
standing administrative staffing issues. He pointed out in 1992, the Fire Department had 5.5
administrative staff and now has 5. He recalled his proposal four years ago to hire three Battalion Chiefs
and placing one on each shift was the best global solution to address deficiencies in operations. He noted
those three Battalion Chiefs have assisted with some administration functions but as shift workers, they
were not on the job every day which affected continuity. Now, the opportunity has arisen and funding is
available to hire a sixth person to assist administrative staff. He commented although the position was an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 9
Administrative Battalion Chief, many of the administrative staff also had field responsibilities. He noted
that the Fire Department has one Executive Assistant for 53 people.
He advised when Medic 7 dissolved in 2003, along with taking on a new service and eight new
employees who were paramedics and were now firefighter paramedics, Edmonds signed a contract with
Lynnwood for medical service administrator duties and medical service administrative assistant duties for
the next three years. The proposal in the 2006 budget was to reclassify the Training and Safety Officer
who was also a paramedic to assume medical service administrative duties. The proposal also includes
reclassification of the Administrative Assistant, promoting a Firefighter to fill the Lieutenant's vacancy
and hiring an entry level Firefighter to fill the vacancy created by the promotion. He advised funding was
from the $85,000 paid to Lynnwood over the past three years.
Councilmember Dawson commended Chief Tomberg for his proposal to add staff that the Fire
Department desperately needed via existing funding.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the Police Department vehicle replacement, Police Officer
replacement and the Street Crime Unit. Police Chief Stern stated the vehicles will accommodate the new
12 -hour shift schedule that was negotiated in the recent contract to better utilize existing personnel. The
result would be more officers on the street which would require additional vehicles. With regard to the
Street Crime Unit, the City has been experiencing an increase in auto thefts, identity theft, prostitution,
street level drug dealing, etc.; the Street Crime Unit is a proactive method of approaching that situation.
He noted most agencies of Edmonds' size utilize such an approach and it has been successful statewide.
The third position is to address the City's aging workforce. The Police Department currently has nine
people over the age of 50 this year and another seven would be over 50 next year. The Department was
experiencing a higher level of injuries and recovery was not as fast. The intent of the additional position .
is to address overtime deficits to fill in for officers out due to injury. He noted the Department has not
added any commissioned officers since 1998 and as workloads increase, it became more difficult to keep
up with the call volume. He concluded officers were being worn out by overtime.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the cost of these positions reflected a reduction in overtime costs.
Chief Stern answered it was hoped the overtime budget would be reduced; however, overtime was often
the result of factors beyond the Department's control.
Councilmember Dawson asked how confident staff was that the legislature would adopt sales tax sourcing
this year. Mr. Clements answered one of the reasons for phasing in the new public safety positions mid-
year was to allow reconsideration if sales tax sourcing was not adopted. Some of the opposition to sales
tax sourcing in the past has been because it was not occurring nationally and now it has, making it easier
to determine the amount of revenue generated. In addition, cities opposed to sales tax sourcing had
recently agreed on a legislative package. The City's lobbyist also believed the legislature would pass
sales tax sourcing this year.
Councilmember Wilson asked about the $140,000 cost of a two -year rewrite of the Zoning Code.
Mr. Bowman answered the entire cost was front - loaded into 2006. The Council could budget $70,000 in
2006 and $70,000 in 2007. The intent of allocating the entire cost upfront was so that the consultant was
aware of the total project cost and to ensure the Council was aware of the total cost for the two -year
rewrite. Councilmember Wilson noted it was likely the entire $140,000 would not be expended in 2006.
Mr. Bowman agreed.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether consideration had been given to contracting out inspection
services and incorporating a surcharge in the fee. Mr. Bowman answered that could be considered
although typically the cost for outsourcing was much higher than hiring a temporary employee.
Councilmember Wilson requested staff provide a cost comparison of the two methods.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 10
Councilmember Wilson asked if the new fire boat would require the Fire Department undergo specialized
training and if so, had it been incorporated into the budget. Chief Tomberg stated the Department
received a $23,000 reimbursement from the State for marine firefighter training conducted at the North
Bend Fire Academy. The City is also a member of the marine firefighter commission, a group of
communities from King, Pierce, Snohomish and Island counties that train on waterside incidents and
emergencies. He stated the Department has done extensive training including on the work boat stored at
the Port.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the impact on City revenues from utility taxes in light of
increasing fuel oil costs. Mr. Clements did not expect a large increase in utility tax revenue in 2006 other
than a slight increase due to increases in natural gas. A 6% increase over 2005 was projected in the 2006
budget. He relayed the PUD was envisioning stable rates or possibly a slight drop in electrical rates due
to Enron settlements.
Councilmember Moore expressed her support for the new positions in the Police Department and inquired
about the paperwork these positions would generate. Chief Stern acknowledged the more hours worked,
the more paper was generated and staff was close to capacity. He commented it was likely they would
request assistance in that area next year.
Councilmember Moore commented as a result of Hurricane Katrina, there had been a great deal of
concern in the community regarding whether the City was sufficiently prepared. She noted the budget
included additional police radios and asked whether the Department had all the portable radios it needed.
Chief Stern answered the Department was fortunate to have obtained an additional four radios via a
Homeland Security grant and now had a radio for everyone. The problem experienced in New Orleans
was the radios did not work because the base station and antennas were not operational. As a result,
communication in New Orleans was via ham radio operators for several days. In an emergency of that
magnitude there was limited likelihood that normal communication systems would be available.
Councilmember Olson asked whether the moratorium on building in downtown affected the 2006 budget
or the 2007 budget. Mr. Bowman answered it affected the 2005 and 2006 budgets. Councilmember
Olson observed the Council needed to address that situation as soon as possible.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the increased budget for election costs in 2006. Assistant
Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov answered that was due to anticipated payment of
November 2005 election costs in 2006. Councilmember Dawson requested staff provide further details
regarding the amount budgeted for election costs.
Councilmember Moore commented she was excited about being part of Team Edmonds last year,
recalling she brought the proposal to the Council and Port. She believed in community marketing and
wanted the City to continue its effort to bring people to Edmonds. She asked the Council to consider
what would be the most effective method, commenting she did not believe in measurables in a marketing
campaign unless it was a sustained campaign of at least ten years. She encouraged the Council to
contemplate the most effective method for marketing Edmonds and she would provide further
information regarding Team Edmonds at a future meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he would reserve his thoughts about Team Edmonds until a plan
was presented, noting there was currently no funding for a marketing program in the budget as the
Council was awaiting a plan.
Municipal 11. DISCUSSION OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE POSITION
Count Judge
Position Edmonds Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair explained there were two issues for consideration: (1)
whether to keep the Edmonds Municipal Court, and (2) whether to make the Judge an elected position.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page I I
Judge Fair explained the four -year judicial term of the Municipal Judge expired at the end of 2005 which
provided the Council the opportunity to review and determine whether to retain the Edmonds Municipal
Court or return to Snohomish County District Court or South District Court. He referred to his memo
regarding this issue, noting the matter had also been considered by the Public Safety Committee. Their
recommendation was to keep the Edmonds Municipal Court. He noted fiscally it was a wash although it
was slightly more advantageous to have a local court, the difference was not significant in the overall
budget, approximately a $9,000 per year savings not including 2005. Due to recent legislation to address
the Supreme Court decision and additional law enforcement officers, it was anticipated there would be
more filings, hence more revenue in coming years. He pointed out as filing increased the Edmonds
Municipal Court could be operated more efficiently and increased filings did not increase expenses. The
converse was true for District Court as there was a cost associated with each filing. He referred to the
October 11 Public Safety Committee meeting where the reasons for retaining a local court were cited such
as greater flexibility, accountability and consistency.
If the Council made a decision to keep the local district court, the second decision was whether to change
the Municipal Judge from an appointed position to an elected position. He referred to the Public Safety
Committee meeting minutes in which Kent's Municipal Court Judge McSeveney related there were only
19 elected Municipal Court Judges out of over 200 positions. In Judge McSeveney's opinion an elected
Municipal Court Judge provided more judicial independence.
Judge Fair stated the decision regarding whether to make the Municipal Court Judge an elected position
should impact the upcoming appointment. His analysis of the statute indicated the timing of the
Council's decision regarding whether to make the Municipal Court Judge an elected position limited the
possibility that a special election would be required.
Judge Fair related there was a strong movement by the court system via the legislature to have all judges
elected by 2010. . Currently there was legislation that would provide reimbursement to the City for
malting the Municipal Court Judge an elected position. Under the current salary and hour structure, the
City would not benefit from this program until 2007 or 2008. Although it was originally believed the
amount the City would receive would be considerable, it was determined the amount was not significant
in the short term but would be a significant amount over time.
Judge Fair briefly addressed election costs, commenting worse case scenario, if the Municipal Court
Judge position was the only elected primary in Snohomish County, the cost could be over $100,000. The
more likely cost would be in the range of $16,000 - $40,000.
He summarized the decision between an elected or appointed Municipal Court Judge was fiscally a wash;
the decision for the Council was whether to give more independence to the judiciary via making it an
elected position. Judge Fair favored the increased independence of the judiciary via making the
Municipal Court Judge an elected position. The Public Safety Committee unanimously supported making
it an elected position although the Committee did not consider the cost of an election. He explained the
Council need not detennine whether to make an adjustment in the salary at this time; the salary structure
could remain the same, the Municipal Court Judge made an elected position and then determine when it
made the most fiscal sense to balance the amount the State would provide with making the position
elected. He explained he currently worked approximately 24 hours per week, reducing that to 22 hours it
would become cost feasible next year to change to an elected position.
Councilmember Plunkett commented on the unlikelihood that the Municipal Court Judge would be the
only item in a primary election. He asked staff to investigate the typical number of primaries in an off
election year.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 12
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the court administrative staff was under the authority of the Judge
or the Mayor if the Judge were an elected position. Judge Fair answered under State statute, regardless of
whether the Municipal. Court Judge was elected or appointed, the Municipal Court staff served at the will
of the Judge.
For Councilmember Orvis, Judge Fair advised generally if a Municipal Court Judge was unopposed, the
position would not appear on the ballot.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Judge Fair advised Washington did not have a process for holding an
election to retain a judge. Councilmember Dawson advised according to State statute, an appointed
Municipal Court Judge was required to stand for election every four years.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her support for maintaining the Municipal Court although it may be
necessary to consider consolidation of the Municipal Court and District Court in the future but she found
it premature to go to a District Court now. She recommended maintaining the Edmonds Municipal Court
and urged the Council proceed with making the Municipal. Court Judge an elected position to promote the
independence of the judiciary. Although an appointed Judge provided the illusion of having more control
over the Judge, as the recent unfortunate situation with the previous Municipal Court Judge illustrated, the
Judge was an independent branch and there was little the Mayor could do. She noted an appointed
Municipal Court Judge also may make the public feel the Municipal Court was not as real a court as
another court. She noted at some point it would be a financial benefit to the City to have an elected judge.
The City could have an elected Municipal Court Judge and not raise the Judge's salary to the level
necessary to obtain the State funding until it was financially advantageous for the City. She noted the
Council could also decide prior to 2009, when the four -year judicial term of the Municipal Judge expired,
that they did not want to have an elected Municipal Court Judge or convert to a District Court.
Councilmember Dawson preferred the Council make a decision regarding whether the Municipal Court
Judge would be an elected position prior to making the new appointment so that the candidates knew they
would be required to stand for election in 2009. She commented the electorate in the City was well
informed and sophisticated enough to make a decision about the Municipal Court Judge. Although some
cities argued against having an elected Municipal Court Judge because they feel there was not a good
enough base to draw from, Edmonds had an excellent number of qualified candidates.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE TO MAINTAIN
THE MUNICIPAL COURT AND MAKE THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE AN ELECTED
POSITION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE
ORDINANCE.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his support for retaining the Municipal Court rather than a District Court and
to change to an elected Judge position.
Councilmember Orvis expressed his support for making the Municipal Court Judge an elected position,
pointing out the importance of a Judge being accountable to citizens. Councilmember Dawson clarified
that once the Council appointed a Municipal Court Judge, the Judge remained for four years and the
Mayor and Council had no ability to remove the Judge from office; only the Supreme Court could remove
a Judge from office.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 13
13. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS
Excused COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
Absence
EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON FROM THE OCTOBER 18, 2005 COUNCIL
MEETING. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON ABSTAINED.
Snohomish Cc. Councilmember Wilson advised he planned to attend the Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting
Tomorrow tomorrow.
Domestic Councilmember Dawson advised she was absent from last week's Council meeting attending a Domestic
Violence Violence seminar in California. She offered to provide a brief presentation on the issues discussed, noting
there were several interesting presentations on high profile cases. She urged the community to vote,
regardless of whom they voted for, and to be informed about local and statewide issues on the ballot as
well as the candidates in all elections including the judicial race.
scum Councilmember Olson reported Representative Brian Sullivan attended the recent South Snohomish
Snohomish Cities meeting to discuss issues being considered by the legislature in 2006 and what the group could do
cities to advance common issues.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked Student Representative Molly Thomson for her participation and
wished her the best.
Councilmember Moore reported the SeaShore Forum agreed to forward a request to the Sound Transit
seashore
Forum Board asking that they reinstate improvements to the intersection of Hwy. 99 and SR 104 to Phase 2. She
forwarded the Forum's request to Council President Marin, a Sound Transit Board Member.
Councilmember Moore expressed her appreciation to finance staff, particularly Administrative Services
Director Dan Clements and Assistant Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov for the excellent
job they did preparing the 2005 and 2006 budgets. She also thanked Molly Thomson for participating as
Student Representative, specifically for paying attention, doing her homework and actively participating
including taking a public stand unapologetieally and gracefully. She advised Ms. Thomson had applied
for a scholarship for student leadership.
Edmonds
Center for the Councilmember Moore commented it was exciting to see demolition and construction beginning on the
Arts Edmonds Center for the Arts site. She encouraged the public to drive by what would soon be a wonderful
facility. She also encouraged the public to drive by the beautiful artwork recently installed on City Hall
as well as other artwork throughout the City. Mayor Haakenson advised the dedication of the artwork on
City Hall was scheduled for October 31 at 3:00 p.m.
Student Representative Molly Thomson asked the audience to maintain respect for Councilmembers,
noting recent displays were not something anyone wanted to watch on TV and they were not something
the City wanted to be known for. She thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as Student
Representative, remarking she had had a great time.
Mayor Haakenson thanked Mr. Nicholson for cutting short what appeared to be a politically motivated
Poli tical speech and expressed his appreciation for his courtesy. Mayor Haakenson agreed with Mr. Hertrich that
Campaigns there had been an enormous amount of negative campaigning this year, negativity that had flowed into the
Council Chambers. He noted this was unlike anything he had seen in the past ten years and completely
unlike a typical Edmonds political campaign. He emphasized Council meetings were not the place for
campaigning. He relayed the Council's request a month ago and again recently to ask the public to leave
campaign speeches outside the Council Chambers. He asked the public to refrain from politically
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25, 2005
Page 14
motivated speeches at the podium for the next two meetings, remarking this type of negativity and
campaigning was most unfortunate. He expressed the sincere hope that this year was not the norm and
that future campaigns would return to an issues discussion and the civility of past Edmonds campaigns.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
G ,°Y r ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE,CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 25,2005
Page 15
jith AGENDA
p EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
OCTOBER 25, 2005
6:45 p.m. - Interview Candidates for the Historic Preservation Commission
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2005.
(C) Approval of claim checks #83136 through #83316 for the week of October 17,
2005, in the amount of $485,559.58. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #42000 through #42056 for the period October 1 through October 15,
2005, in the amount of $661,268.83.*
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Nina Afanasenko ($2,000.00),
Michael & Megan McMurray (amount undetermined), and Margie Curtner
($4,320.33).
(E) Community Services Department Quarterly Report.
(F) Economic Development Department Quarterly Report.
(G) Approval of L-5 Salary Survey for non-represented employees. (Approved for the
Consent Agenda by the Finance Committee on 10/11/05.)
(H) Proposed Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to
adopt a new Chapter 16.77 MPOR - Master Planned Office-Residential, and
amending the provisions of Section 21.40.030, Height.
(I) Proposed Resolution commending Molly Thomson as Student Council
Representative.
3. ( 5 Min.) Confirmation of Mayor's appointments of Christine Deiner-Karr and Rob Van
Tassel) to the Historic Preservation Commission.
4. ( 5 Min.) Presentation of Resolution to Student Representative Molly Thomson.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
OCTOBER 25, 2005
5. (15 Min.) Update on Edmonds School District by Superintendent Nick Broissoit.
6. (10 Min.) Municipal Court Judge Annual Report
7. (10 Min.) Prosecutor Annual Report
8. (10 Min.) Public Defender Annual Report
9. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
10. (so Min.) 2006 Budget Work Session
11. (20 Min.) Discussion of the Municipal Court Judge position.
12. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
13. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television-Government Access Channel 21.
Page 2 of 2