11/23/1999 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 1999
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Barbara Fahey, Mayor
Thomas A. Miller, Council President
Gary Haakenson, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Dave Earling, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Christie Lee, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Ray Miller, Development Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
James Walker, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Karissa Kawamoto, Planner
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Doug Farmen, Accounting Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Change to COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
Agenda HOLLEBEKE, TO ADD "DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE -99 -134" AS
AGENDA ITEM 7A FOR A FIVE MINUTE DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
1
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 1
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAAKENSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The
agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
pprove
Minutes
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1999
pprove
laim
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM. WARRANTS #35900 THROUGH #37445 FOR THE WEEK OF
NOVEMBER 15, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $207,778.17. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
amants
WARRANTS #26695 THROUGH #26311 FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 1
eneral
and
ear 2000
Preparation
d. #3279
Amend ECC
2.10 & 2.35
tate Rep.
ike
ooper-
Impacts of
1-695
1
NOVEMBER 15, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $437,639.55. APPROVAL OF POLICE
DEPARTMENT HOLIDAY BUY -BACK PAYROLL WARRANTS #26802 THROUGH
#26858 IN THE AMOUNT OF $116,829.68.
(D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE. PERIOD
ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999
(E) UPDATE ON CITYWIDE YEAR 2000 PREPARATION EFFORTS
(F) ORDINANCE NO. 3279 AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2.10, CONFIRMATION OF
DUTIES OF CITY OFFICERS, AND CHAPTER 2.35, V,A,CATION AND SICK LEAVE
3. DISCUSSION WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVE MIKE COOPER REGARDING LOCAL
IMPACTS OF I -695
Mayor Fahey introduced Representative Mike Cooper who expressed his thanks to Councilmember
Nordquist for the service he has given to the Edmonds community.
Representative Cooper acknowledged the passage of I -695 resulted in the loss of approximately $1.2
billion in revenue to the State, much of it revenue that was distributed to local government such as cities,
counties, public transit districts, public health districts, etc. He said this raises the issue of whether the
State will address this loss of revenue. He recalled Initiative 601 set aside approximately $450 - $500
million of the surplus as a rainy day fund and using any of those funds requires two- thirds vote of both,
Houses and the Governor's signature. He doubted a two- thirds vote was possible. Once the fund reaches
$1 billion, which has been done, all moneys over $1 billion are dedicated to - common school
construction. The education community does not want the rainy day fund to fall below $1 billion. He
acknowledged the difficulties the City has faced as a result of I -695 and was pleased with the methods
the City had utilized to get through 2000.
Representative Cooper pointed out the State Constitution establishes the Legislature's paramount duty as
education that he believed meant funding K -12 as well as higher education. He pointed out I -695 will
impact any Referendum 49 projects in Edmonds. He believed the. Legislature's priority was to fund
projects that are currently bonded as well as transportation projects with ISTEA or T -21 funds to avoid
losing federal matches. If funds remain, other transportation projects will be re- prioritized. He pointed
out DOT has ceased awarding bids awaiting the Legislature's action. He said the ferry and transit
systems are major concerns to the Legislature. He hoped the Legislature would determine new revenue
streams or identify funds to be used as a bridge until cities can request approval of additional revenue
from the voters, at least to replace the public safety funding. He acknowledged the Legislature could
utilize the surplus and "fix" the situation for one year, thereby significantly diminishing the surplus.
Councilmember Haakenson pointed out Edmonds was the only city in Snohomish County that voted
against I -695. He commented the Council must walk a fine line when considering an increase in
property taxes and asked Representative, Cooper if he had any guidance. Representative Cooper
answered even if the Legislature acted immediately, the City would have to get through the first quarter.
He said it was not likely the two-thirds vote necessary to utilize the rainy day fund would be
accomplished. However, there was opportunity to reach agreement on providing some relief for public
safety issues.
Councilmember Haakenson asked if the "bridge" Representative Cooper referred to was money the State
would give to cities. Representative Cooper said he was not suggesting it be a loan, rather that it would
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 2
be a bridge to allow the Legislature and cities to work together. Councilmember Haakenson
acknowledge the Council was close to determining how to address funding in 2000 and although $1
million in cuts were necessary in 2000, the financial picture for 2001 was still very dismal.
Representative Cooper answered the same message is being provided by local and State government. He
commented the State owes the transit systems in the state $130 million on January 1, 2000 as a result of a
shift of funds due to Referendum 49.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke hoped the Legislature would look at the big picture rather than
piecemeal. Representative Cooper commented both Houses and both parties agree all programs /services
are "on the table" including privatization of the ferries, disbanding the liquor control board, contracting
state road maintenance, and, he hoped, a complete restructuring of the tax system.
Council President Miller recalled proponents of I -695 indicated MVET represented only 2% of the
State's budget. However, what happened is the State is passing off the loss to cities whose reductions
range from 2% to 24 %. Although he appreciated the Legislature's consideration of new taxing
authorities, he inquired about the possibility of the Legislature's determining how to absorb some of the
loss, including distributing sales tax equalization funds to cities. Representative Cooper answered how
to make a 2% cut in the General Fund ;is being considered; the problem is that means different things to
different people. He explained his priority was to use as little of the reserve as possible and identify
additional funds via a leaner budget. He pointed out the MVET actually represent approximately 7.5%
rather than 2% of the State's budget. Council President Miller commented the City is reducing staffing
levels and urged the State to consider areas for reduction. Representative Cooper acknowledged every
level of State government would need to cut their budget, an action the Governor has already directed
occur.
COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER,
TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Fahey observed the worst effect of I -695 is freezing of all fees associated with services and
Governor Locke has indicated he does not support any governmental challenge. She asked who made
the decision whether the State would challenge the constitutionality of the initiative. She pointed out
unless the initiative was challenged, taxes would eventually be used to subsidize fees. Representative
Cooper said the State Legislature could challenge the initiative but he did not believe this would occur.
He said there was a possibility more organizations, in addition to the transit unit, would challenge the
constitutionality of the initiative. He said the Governor and some members of the Legislature are not in
favor of challenging the initiative, as they do not want to overturn the will of the people.
Mayor Fahey recalled the MVET was put in place as a replacement for personal property tax and said
she heard the legislation that put the MVET in place defined a process for re- establishing the personal
property tax if MVET was eliminated. Representative Cooper said the original personal property tax
legislation had an exemption for automobiles. The initiative removed the exemption, which some people
take to mean personal property taxes can. be charged again. The Snohomish County Assessor's Office
indicates they would need to assess personal property tax on 84,000 vehicles and they question whether
the mechanism to collect the tax would be more than the taxes collected. He understood there would be
a bill in the Legislature indicating personal property taxes would not be assessed on automobiles.
Mayor Fahey thanked Representative Cooper for speaking with the Council, observing he was the only
Legislator who has offered to do so. She agreed the City..is in a quandary with establishing the 2000
budget as well as future budgets with the potential of flat revenue.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999,
Page 3
Consideration 'of Continuation of Agenda Item 5 (Closed Record Meeting — Appeal of the
coed
cord Architectural Design Board Decision to Approve an Application by Douglas Spee for a Mixed Use
peal - Building Incorporating Commercial Uses and Parking on the First Floor and 18 Residential Unit
allonee on the 2 "d and 3'd Floors)
-99 -201
Mayor Fahey advised the Council has been asked by the appellant to consider a continuation of Agenda
Item 5 due'to a death in his family. Council President Miller said the applicant has indicated he does not
want to continue the closed record meeting. .
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON,
TO CONSIDER CONTINUATION OF AGENDA ITEM 5 TO A FUTURE DATE. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Fahey explained although the public hearing was scheduled for tonight, the appellant is unable to
appear. She explained, as this is a closed record meeting, only information contained in the file may be
considered by the Council. She said the appellant requested this item be rescheduled to a future date to
allow him to appear .in person to explain the reason for his appeal. Mayor Fahey read the appellant's
(James A. Mallonee) letter into the record, "The purpose of this letter is to request postponement of the
appeal hearing on November 23 due to the sudden death of my uncle. He was in good health and his
sudden death was totally unexpected. I was notified of his death Saturday. Gathering of family members
for viewing and bereavement is Tuesday evening and the funeral is Wednesday at 2:00. I called the
Edmonds City Clerk Monday morning requesting delay of the hearing and was referred to the planning
department. I made my request and they called me back at 5:30 PM stating that the applicant refused to
agree to a delay. Monday night I contacted another party of record to speak on my behalf but he is not
available. Therefore this request is made directly to the Council. The sudden death left some unsaid
matters that have caused great emotion and distress among cousins and elderly family members that are
traveling distances. As I am sure you understand, my immediate family concerns overshadow the appeal
process. However. I am eager to finalize the resolution of this Architectural Design Board decision;
therefore, I respectively request a delay for this appeal presentation for one week. Thank you for your
kind consideration."
Mayor Fahey said it is not possible to delay this hearing for one week due to the hearing on the selection
of public art for the downtown traffic circle on November 30 and the expectation there will not be
adequate time to hear this matter at that time. She explained this hearing must be held within 60 days
unless the applicant agrees to a delay. However, according to the letter, the applicant, Mr. Spee, is not
agreeable to a delay. She said it would be possible for the Council to schedule the closed record meeting
for December 7 and have the decision on the Council's December 14 Consent Agenda.
Mayor Fahey asked Mr. Spee to indicate if he was willing to postpone the hearing beyond the 60 days to
allow it to be scheduled in January or delay the hearing until December 7 when the appellant could
address the issue.
Douglas Spee. said although he sympathizes with the appellant, he did not wish to grant an extension. He
said the appellant's letter is incredibly clear on the issue to be presented to the Council. He said the
hearing should not be delayed as the appellant would likely read his letter to the Council and no further
information would be provided.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 4
Councilmember Haakenson observed no new information could be presented at a closed record hearing
regardless of whether the hearing was held tonight or in two weeks. However, out of respect for the
death in Mr. Mallonee's family, he was in favor of postponing the hearing until December 7.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON,
TO CONTINUE THE CLOSED RECORD HEARING TO DECEMBER 7. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember White said although he could fairly rule on the issue based on the record provided to the
Council and did not anticipate any additional information would be presented to the Council, he stressed
the importance of the Council maintaining the appearance of fairness and the appearance of giving
everyone a fair chance.
Closed 4. CLOSED RECORD MEETING — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO
Record APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY OLYMPIC VIEW DELI FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 3
Appeal - SIGNS TOTALING 21 SQUARE FEET IN AREA TO BE MOUNTED ON 3 SIDES OF THE
Hertrich 97
AP=9 EXISTING GAS PUMP ISLAND CANOPY OVER THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN HEIGHT
P
OF 14 FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1011 PUGET DRIVE AND IS
ZONED "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS — BN " (Appellant; Roger Hertrich / File No AP -99 -197 /
Applicant: Olympic View Deli / File No. V -99 -134
Mayor Fahey explained this was a closed record meeting and all information must be part of the record
established at the Hearing Examiner hearing. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make
any disclosures regarding the Appearance of Fairness Act. There were no disclosures made. Mayor
Fahey asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge the participation of any Councilmember.
There were no challenges.
Mayor Fahey described the timefr ames for each presentation; staff will provide a summary of the issue,
the appellant will be given ten minutes to present their case and may reserve time for rebuttal, the
applicant will also be given ten minutes to present their case. Any other person with standing in this
process will be given a 3= minute opportunity to speak.
At the appellant's request, Senior Planner Steve Bullock provided the Council with copies of the color
photographs that are part of the record. He also distributed the Hearing Examiner's Exhibit H (the ADB
record for this application), discussed in his report. He explained when he spoke with the Hearing
Examiner, his understanding was Exhibit 14 included only the actual ADB decision as it related to the
signs being mounted on the canopy. The appellant's conversation with the Hearing Examiner seemed to
indicate it also included the minutes from the ADB meeting, which Mr. Bullock distributed to the
Council. Mr. Bullock advised the color photographs correspond to the exhibit list from the Hearing
Examiner's decision, Exhibits C through G. Exhibit H is the - verbatim transcript of the ADB meeting.
Mayor Fahey clarified all the materials being circulated were part of the previous process and had been
reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Bullock agreed.
Mr. Bullock recalled the Council considered this issue approximately one year ago as a result of an
appeal of a staff interpretation. In mid -1998, the logos mounted on the. Texaco canopy had been
determined by staff to be wall graphics and did not require design review by the ADB and were not
subject to the height limits for signs. The logos were approved by staff and allowed to be mounted on
the canopies. The appellant appealed staff's in and the Council' determined the logos were
signs and needed to be regulated as signs. The applicant then submitted a project to the ADB for review
in June 1999. The ADB considered the three proposed logos on the canopy. No testimony was provided
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 5
at that hearing other than the staff report. The ADB determined the proposal complied with the City's
design guidelines criteria and approved the signs in the existing location, configuration, and color.
Upon the ADB approval, the applicant submitted a variance request as the signs mounted on the canopy
exceeded the 14 -foot height limit for attached, wall- mounted signs. Mr. Bullock referred to page 21 of
the Council packet which indicated the canopy is approximately 13.5 feet from the ground to the bottom
edge of the canopy and the logo is mounted in the 3.5 foot band of fascia. During the variance process,
the Hearing Examiner made specific findings related to the 'variance criteria. The issues raised by the
appellant before the Hearing Examiner as well as in this appeal request were addressed in detail by the
Hearing Examiner, particularly in the Findings, Conclusions and Reconsideration decision of the Hearing
Examiner (page 38 of the Council packet). On the first criteria, a special circumstance needs to be
demonstrated by the applicant, the Hearing Examiner determined when taking testimony from the
applicant and considering previous variance requests, that variances had been granted for gas stations in
Neighborhood Business zones for signs mounted on their fascia. One of those was appealed to the
Council who denied the appeal and upheld the decision to allow the signs to be mounted on the canopy.
The Hearing Examiner determined that represented a special circumstance and this project had like
circumstances and should be allowed based on that criteria.
The second criteria, that no special privilege could be demonstrated by approval of this variance, there
have been 5 -6 variances for signs mounted on gasoline canopies in similar zones and therefore the
Hearing Examiner felt no special privilege was demonstrated by approving this application. The Hearing
Examiner found that the proposed signs mounted on a canopy were consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Code. Regarding the criteria that the signs not be detrimental, the Hearing
Examiner indicated that the signs would be visible from adjacent properties but would not be
significantly detrimental as conditioned. The Hearing Examiner added a condition in his
Reconsideration decision that the light intensity of those signs be reduced. Regarding the criteria that the
proposal be the minimum necessary, the Hearing Examiner found that the site is allowed to have 72
square feet of sign and the applicant's proposal.is for 59 square feet. Further, of that 59 square feet, only
21 square feet (three signs at 7 square feet each) are under review in this application. The Hearing
Examiner found the variance should be approved as it met all six criteria.
Appellant
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, asked to retain two minutes for rebuttal. He requested
the Comprehensive Plan be distributed to Councilmembers. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the
Council may take legislative notice of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance as it
presumed the Council knows the information.
Mr. Hertrich recalled during a previous review, some Councilmembers asked to see the photographs. He
commented if Councilmembers lived where he lives, they would understand that "a big red T in your
front room window is detrimental." He said neither staff nor the Hearing Examiner asked to view the
signage from his property. He said staff indicated the sign did not occupy enough of his view to create
an adverse effect. He pointed out at night, "the big red light" is very visible and shines on his living
room wall. Mr. Hertrich said the logos were placed on the canopy as large and high as possible because,
under the. term wall graphics, there are no restrictions. The logos have been in place for the past 1 %2
years. As indicated in the motion on the second page of the verbatim transcript of the ADB minutes, the
motion maker said the signs were up so the board may as well vote for them, indicting there was no
question whether the signs should be smaller, whether the signs fit the building, or whether the signs fit .
the neighborhood. He said staff s only concern was whether the signs met the area requirement. There
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 6
was also no discussion by the ADB regarding lighting or size /shape of the signs. Staff later indicated to
the Hearing Examiner that all these issues had been discussed and the ADB found the signs were not
garish or obtrusive; however, the ADB never mentioned those issues. He summarized the information
provided to the ADB was highly restricted and the time spent reviewing this issue was also very
restricted.
Mr. Hertrich said the Comprehensive Plan addresses what factors are to be considered in the BN zone.
He pointed out this is a residential and business combination neighborhood. He observed changes from
residential to business have occurred on Edmonds Way, a change he is seeking to avoid in his
neighborhood. The only way he felt the identity of his neighborhood could be preserved was to restrict
the -type of development that is detrimental to the neighborhood. He.. said although the use is a
commercial use, it must fit into the. neighborhood. He referred to Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) Section 20.85.010 that addresses how a variance can be granted, pointing out the City
should not be allowed to grant a variance based on the information provided. He explained Section
20.85.010 does not allow special circumstances that. are predicated on any factor personal to the owner,
including any factors resulting from any actions of the owner. He said the owner built the station and the
canopy and the design of the canopy is a result of the action of the owner., He stressed legally a special
circumstance did not exist. He said staff and the Hearing Examiner have indicated the high canopy is
necessary to accommodate fuel trucks and that represents a special circumstance. Mr. Hertrich pointed
out the fuel filling area is outside the canopy area. He said granting this variance would be a special
privilege.
Mr. Hertrich said the code refers to other business in the same vicinity and in the same zoning. He
pointed out there are no other gas stations in the same zone in the same vicinity, yet, staff and the
Hearing Examiner have stretched the vicinity to include the entire City. He said the City could not grant -
a variance just because someone else was granted a variance.
Mr. Hertrich said in 1989 when this gas station and canopy came into existence via a Conditional Use
Permit, the members of the ADB felt the colors were too garish and requested gray colors for the
building. The ADB also indicated the signage should be reduced and be similar to the downtown area
including a suggestion that the signs be placed under the canopy. The Hearing Examiner indicated the
signs could not be placed under the canopy because they could not be seen or they would get in the way.
Mr. Hertrich said lighting could illuminate the signs under the canopy and there was ample space for
erecting the signs. He reiterated the applicant, staff, and the Hearing Examiner have not satisfied the
criteria for granting a variance.
Applicant
Lowell Rottrup, 17427 NE 171' Ct, Redmond, represented the business owner, Mehdi Rahami, and the
property owner's representative, Alan Grey. Mr. Rottrup stated that Mr. Rahami, Mr. Grey, as well as a
citizen opposing the appeal were present. Mr. Rottrup explained they opposed the appeal for several
reasons. He said Mr. Rahami and Texaco have great respect for the community and have sought to meet
the conditions imposed by the Edmonds Code. He explained to their knowledge, there has been a gas
station at this location since the early 1960's which was remodeled in the late 1970's or early 1980's.
The station serves neighbors, commuters, travelers on the State Route, as well as ferry users. He
explained in order for the business to be viable, adequate signage is necessary. The Hearing Examiner
on two occasions and the ADB reviewed the signage and approved it as it currently exists. He said the
sign colors were part of the ADB decision and no objections were voiced. He pointed out several
concessions have been made regarding signage -- the building is not painted the Texaco colors, the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 7
monument sign is a small 2x7 -foot sign (14 square feet), and the total signage allowed is 72 square feet
and the building has only 59 square feet, 21 square feet on the canopy. He said although they would like
larger signs, they are content with the signs and feel it presents the Texaco brand adequately.
Mr. Rottrup said the Hearing Examiner's decision to approve the signage over 14 feet was consistent
with other gas stations in the area. He referred to Mr. Hertrich's comments regarding the height of the
canopy, explaining gasoline is also sold to delivery trucks with tall van boxes that require the higher
canopy height. The colors are consistent with other gasoline brands in the Edmonds area such as Arco's
orange, red, and blue, Chevron's blue, Shell's yellow, and BP's bright green, none of which are earth
tones and could all be considered garish. He stressed they want to be treated like other gasoline sellers in
the area. Automobile drivers look for their favorite brand of gasoline by looking at canopies and primary
identification signs. Without the logos on .the canopies, drivers assume the station is unbranded and
question the value of the gasoline. .
There was no one with standing in this matter who wished to address the Council.
Rebuttal
Mr. Hertrich said he has lived across the street from the gas station for ,12 years without any lighting on
the canopy. He said the signage does not need to be this high, be lighted, or shine into his front room.
The fact that the sign was approved by the ADB does not. provide reason for approval by the Hearing
Examiner. He reiterated the actions of the owner created the need for the variance. He said the operation
of the gas station for 12 years without a sign indicates the minimum necessary criteria have not been met.
Mr.. Hertrich requested Councilmembers picture themselves living across the street from this and to
consider if the signage were proposed again, whether it would be smaller and placed in a location that
would not cause problems for residents across the street, thereby allowing the business and residential
community to live together reasonably.
Councilmember Haakenson asked what time the Olympic View Deli closed. Mr. Rottrup answered
10:00 p.m. as required in the BN zone. Councilmember Haakenson asked if there was a timer on the
outside lights. Mr. Snyder advised this information was not part of the record.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Plunkett asked where the gas trucks park when filling the tanks. Mr. Rottrup answered
they park in front of the building. He agreed with Mr. Hertrich that the gas trucks do not have to go
under the canopy to fill the gas tanks but pointed out tall delivery trucks purchase gas at the station.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the gas station had been in that location for 12 years. Mr. Rottrup
answered yes, in its current configuration. Mr. Snyder advised he could not provide the history. of the
gas station as that information was not in the record.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the gas station had been in that location a considerable amount of
time and asked what special circumstance existed for requesting lighting. Mr. Rottrup answered when
they took over the station two years ago, there were no signs on the canopy.. They applied for and
received approval for the wall graphics due to their belief they were necessary and because other stations
in the area have them.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 8
For Councilmember White, Mr. Bullock described the location of the former gas station behind the QFC
that was granted a variance by the Hearing Examiner.
Councilmember Plunkett said one of the conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner was a reduction in
the canopy lighting to a level that would still illuminate the signs but would not cause glare or be
obtrusive to nearby residents. He asked how staff would determine if the lighting had been sufficiently
reduced. Mr. Snyder advised this information was not contained in the record. He advised the Council
could provide direction to staff regarding how to enforce the condition.
Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
Councilmember Plunkett said the Hearing Examiner makes reference to four special circumstances
including that the square footage of the signage is less than allowed and that others have signs on similar
sites. He questioned how these factors constituted a special circumstance. He observed the Hearing
Examiner found it would not be practical to locate the signs under the canopy due to safety
considerations. As the gas trucks do not need to go under the canopy and all gas stations serve large
trucks under their canopies, he questioned ,how that issue represented a special circumstance. He
questioned how the length of time the gas station had been in existence and now the owner wanted to
install signage constituted a special circumstance. Regarding detriment, he observed although the sign
company may have a method of ensuring the lighting is not obtrusive, he was unsure a practical way
could be determined to ensure the lighting would not be obtrusive.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke stated this has been a gas station for a long time and is located on a
major thoroughfare to and from the ferries, a ferry route that has the most truck traffic of any route in the
system. Therefore, it was reasonable to expect a fair amount of the vehicular traffic on the route is truck
traffic. He agreed sign identification was an integral part of any business and in the gas business, the
brand name is important to many people. He said it was unreasonable to expect a business to erect a sign
with small letters at the pump level. He said his greatest concern had been illumination but he was
confident staff and the sign company could determine adequate lighting that was not overly obtrusive to
the neighbors. He reiterated the station is well established in this neighborhood and does not have any
more of an adverse impact on the neighborhood than it did prior to the sign modifications, other than the
amount of light emanating from the signage.
Council President Miller shared Councilmember Van Hollebeke's opinion, observing the Hearing
Examiner considered the special circumstances and found the ,14 -foot height was necessary to
accommodate trucks that purchase gasoline. He agreed with the need for brand identification. He agreed
with the concern expressed regarding the back lighting of the logo on the canopy but said the Hearing
Examiner had addressed that issue. He supported the Hearing Examiner's decision.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION THIS ITEM FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilmember Haakenson pointed out the June 16 ADB transcript indicated the ADB ruled in favor of
this application and the ADB is very critical of sign applications in the City. He noted on September 2
the Hearing Examiner found special circumstances exist, that the application met the Zoning Code and
Comprehensive Plan, the proposal was not detrimental, and the minimum. required was provided. He
said the Hearing Examiner again found this to be true when he upheld his decision in his September 23
reconsideration. Councilmember Haakenson found the Hearing Examiner's findings and the ADB's
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 9
findings overwhelming and favored upholding their decision. However, he suggested any Council
recommendation indicate the canopy lights be operated via a timer and be turned off when the business is
closed.
Councilmember White expressed frustration with pieces of the record being presented to the Council at
the time of the hearing, such as the color photographs. In reading the Hearing Examiner's decision, his
reconsideration decision, and his Findings of Fact, he found they did not address Mr. Hertrich's claim
that the glare into his living room from the sign was detrimental. Although this was a subjective claim,
the Hearing Examiner did not address it other that to state it did not block any views. Without proof that
the sign was not detrimental, it was then detrimental and injurious to Mr. Hertrich and diminishes the
value of his property.
Councilmember Nordquist said this situation has arisen before. He pointed out the City has for years
stressed the fact that signs should be less illuminated and shorter. He referred to the "miniature signs"
for McDonalds, Skipper's, QFC versus their standard signs. He said because there is not a high speed on
that street, the red star can be identified quickly without a great deal of illumination. He urged the
Council to address the challenges regarding signage.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE,, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION SUBJECT TO
INSTALLATION OF A TIMER TO OPERATE THE CANOPY LIGHTS. UPON ROLL CALL,
COUNCILMEMBERS HAAKENSON, MILLER, AND VAN HOLLEBEKE VOTED IN FAVOR,
AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WHITE, AND NORDQUIST VOTED IN OPPOSITION,
RESULTING IN A TIE VOTE.
Mr. Snyder advised the Mayor may cast a tie - breaking vote.
MAYOR FAHEY VOTED IN FAVOR AND THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess. Councilmember Nordquist left the meeting at 8:41 p.m.
Closed 5. CLOSED RECORD MEETING - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Record DECISION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY DOUGLAS SPEE FOR A MIXED -USE
Appeal - BUILDING INCORPORATING COMMERCIAL USES AND PARKING ON THE FIRST FLOOR
Mallonee AND 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE 2ND AND 3RD FLOORS. THE DEVELOPMENT ALSO
P --99 -299 -2 01
INCLUDES AN UNDERGROUND PARKING, GARAGE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 307 BELL STREET AND 210 3RD AVENUE NORTH AND IS ZONED
"COMMUNITY BUSINESS - BC." Appellant: James A. Mallonee / File No AP -99 -201 / Applicant:
Douglas Spee / File No. ADB -98 -191)
This item was continued to the December 7 Council meeting due to a death in the appellant's family (see
Reconsideration of Continuation following Agenda Item 3).
Public 6. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ESTABLISHING PROPERTY TAX LEVIES FOR THE YEAR
Hearing 2000
Establishing
Property
Tax Levies Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler explained under State law, the City is required to
r 2000 establish its 2000 tax levy on or before November 30, 1999 and provide the ordinance establishing the
levies to Snohomish County Assessor no later than December 15, 1999. She referred to the resolution in
the Council packet declaring a finding of significance to allow the adoption of a property tax levy in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23,1999
Page 10
excess of the implicit price deflator, which is currently 1.42%.' She said the percentage amount in the
resolution is blank,. awaiting the Council's decision regarding the amount of the tax levy.
She displayed a list of property tax revenues from 1 -6 %, EMS levy of 1 -6 %, and recapturing the
protected levy capacity. She displayed a chart indicating the revenue that would be realized from each 1-
% increase in property taxes (approximately $63,000) and the estimated annual impact on the median
home value for the 1% increase ($5). At the maximum of 6% that the City is allowed to levy, the .
revenue increase would be approximately $377,000 with an estimated annual impact of $31 on the
property taxes of a median home value. She reviewed the revenue that could be realized if the Council
chose to recapture unused levy capacity. Recent conversations with the Snohomish County Assessor
indicate the City did not levy the maximum property tax capacity for a number of years. As far back as
1993, the City had capacity remaining that was not levied which has been carried forward. She
explained approximately $562,000 in additional revenue could be generated if the Council chose to
recapture the protected capacity and assess it at the implicit price deflator (1.42 %), the amount required
by Referendum 47. The annual impact on the median home value of recapturing the protected capacity
and assessing it at 1.42% would be approximately $45. She pointed out this is a one -time only recapture
opportunity for the City as next year all the rules regarding calculation of property taxes will be
eliminated and any property tax increase would require a public vote.
Regarding the EMS levy, she explained the City has not assessed a specific EMS levy in the past. The
EMS levy was voted in by the public several years ago and is assessed at the cap of $0.50 per $1,000 of
assessed valuation. When the City received. the certified values from Snohomish County Assessor last
week, citywide assessed values have increased by 13 %. If the $0.50 per $1000 rate stays in place, the
City would realize a 13% increase in overall EMS levy revenue. However, the EMS levy rate is also
capped at the 6% ceiling similar to the regular property tax. She said the rate per $1,000 will now be less
than $0.50 but property values increases result in extra capacity to generate more revenue via the EMS
levy. She explained the budget projections included an EMS levy of 2 %. At the 6% level,
approximately $72,000 in additional revenue for EMS services could be generated if the Council chose
to impose the maximum EMS tax levy of 6 %. The estimated impact on the median home value at 1% is
$1.17 and at 6 %, the impact is $7.05. Ms. Hetzler said the 3% property tax increase that has been
utilized during recent budget discussions would generate approximately $188,500.
For Councilmember Van Hollebeke, Ms. Hetzler explained the $562,000 represented the amount the
Snohomish Assessor certified would be generated by recapturing all the City's protected levy capacity
assessed by the implicit price deflator. The Council could assess the protected. levy capacity by a
maximum of 6 %. If the Council wished to consider recapturing the protected levy capacity, the
maximum amount that could be assessed is 4% because of the overall cap - -- the combined revenues from
the property tax and the protected levy capacity cannot exceed $868,000.
Councilmember Plunkett observed recapturing the protected levy capacity at the rate of 1.42 %, the
implicit price deflator, adhered to Referendum 47 in a broad sense.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, advised he attended the Snohomish County budget
hearings where it was indicated there would be total .tax increases of $11 million including; a $1.8 million
increase in property taxes and a $1.7 million in road taxes. He commented 51% of voters in the City
were opposed to I -695 and 49% were in favor. He said employees in the City .are paid 2% over union
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 11
wages. His understanding was that a recent initiative regarding I -695 would allow a 2% increase each
year. He also understood the sales tax would be increased to 9% next year.
Jeff Lewis, 23621 92 °d Avenue W, Edmonds, recalled several citizens spoke to the Council last year
regarding their concern with property tax increases to the maximum of 6% over the past several years.
Councilmember Haakenson advised the property tax was increased by 3% last year. Mr. Lewis said he
could accept. a 3% or even 6% increase as I -695 poses special circumstances but was opposed to
recapturing property taxes that were not levied last year and several of his neighbors felt the same. He
pointed out the difficulty the Council had agreeing to assess only a 3% increase in property taxes last
year. He said his vote for City officials was influenced by those who said they were in favor of reduced
property taxes, including Mayor -elect Haakenson and Councilmember -elect Orvis. He commented
Councilmember White's campaign literature indicated his number one priority was to keep spiraling
property taxes down.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed, the public participation portion of the public hearing
and remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. She explained in order for an increase in excess of
the implicit price deflator, Council must determine an emergency exists and approval requires a super
majority vote (five of the seven Councilmembep must vote in favor).
Councilmember Haakenson commented this is a difficult issue for the Council because the passage of I-
695 indicates the will of the people. He pointed out the will of the people in Edmonds was not
necessarily the will of the people in Snohomish County as I -695 failed to pass in Edmonds. He pointed
out this is the last time the Council would deliberate on a property tax increase, because unless changes
were made to I -695, future increases would require a public vote. Further, this was the last opportunity
for the City to recapture any protected levy capacity. He pointed out the need for the.Council to consider
not only 2000 but also the years beyond 2000.
COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER,
TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.)
Councilmember Haakenson said a citizen watching last, week's Council meeting on television
commented he could not understand what the big deal was with raising property taxes by 6 %. This
citizen has a home valued at approximately $235,000 and with a 6% increase, his property taxes would
increase by $31. This citizen commented he is saving $1,200 on his license tabs and said a $31 increase
in property taxes would be fine. Councilmember Haakenson said he calculated the license tabs on his
1994 and 1995 vehicles total $835. His home is assessed at $287,000; a 3% property tax increase would
cost him $20 per year and a 6% increase would be $38 per year, a savings of about $800. He said the
information proposed at the November 15 budget meeting was based on a 3% property tax increase, a
sewer utility tax, reallocation of the telephone tax, a non- resident business license tax, and a transfer
from the emergency fund and would prevent citywide layoffs, preserve a portion of the City's reserves,
reinstate funding. to the Senior Center, Alliance and the flower program, and restore the Community
Service Director position, leaving $25,000 for allocation to other programs. He said if only a 3%
property tax increase was approved by the Council tonight, the City would be okay for 2000. However,
he distributed a memo to department directors today informing them that as Mayor, he will not wait until
November 2000 to begin implementing budget cuts if the Legislature does not assist the City. As
Representative Cooper indicated, it does not appear the Legislature is promising any assistance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 12
Councilmember Haakenson said he has informed department directors quarterly meetings will be held to
cut the budget on a quarterly basis so $1 million will have been cut from the budget by November 2000.
He said department directors have been asked not to fill vacancies next year. If $1 million in cuts were
not made, the ending cash balance in 2001 would be a deficit of $1,246,000. He said the $1 million cuts
reduce the ending cash balance deficit to $250,000. He pointed out recapturing the protected levy
capacity at a rate of 1.42% would generate $562,000, which would result in an ending cash balance in
2001 of $200,000, although there is a proposed ending cash balance deficit of $3 million shortfall in
2002. He stressed the Council has a fiscal responsibility to look beyond 2000 to 2001. He favored
recapturing the $562,000 represented by the protected levy capacity, a $45 increase on a $235,000 home.
He said a 3% property tax increase, recapture of the protected levy capacity, and a 6 % increase in the
EMS levy on his home (valued at $287,000) represented $77 more next year in property taxes, a savings
of $750 due to the reduction in license tabs. He said this would protect the City for two years although
there were no answers after that.
Council President Miller shared Councilmember Haakenson's concerns. He said although he is
concerned with raising taxes, the City faces a $2 million shortfall as a result of the loss of sales tax
equalization and MVET due to the passage of I -695. He said he attempted to make the point with
Representative Cooper that this was a problem for the State rather than cities. He said if he Council does
not take action this year to recapture the protected levy capacity, that ability will not be available next
year and the City will face more layoffs and more service cuts. He supported the recapture of the
protected levy capacity to the implicit price deflator of 1.42 %, a property tax increase of 3 %, and a 6%
EMS .levy.
Councilmember Plunkett said 3% represents inflation; voters indicated in 1997 they expected
government to keep property tax increases to the rate of inflation. In spite of I -695, a 3% increase would
be adhering to that commitment. He was supportive of the 1.42% for the recapture of the protected -levy
as it adheres to the spirit of Referendum 47. Regarding the EMS levy, he pointed out the City's assessed
value creates more funds that will go to Snohomish County if the EMS levy is not increased.
Councilmember Plunkett supported the 6% EMS levy.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke recognized these increases represented only a stop -gap measure, vacant
positions still would not be replaced, etc. He said if the Council votes in favor of the 3% property tax,
recapturing the protected levy capacity, and a 6% EMS levy represents a total cost of $5.50 per month
for a citizen with a home valued at $235,000. He said a majority of citizens, if they had an opportunity
to vote on these increases with the full knowledge of the impact, would support them. He supported the
three proposed increases.
Councilmember White said by recapturing the protected levy capacity and with the proposed property
tax increase, the City was capturing approximately half of what could be assessed. He said the
Edmonds' vote on I -695 indicated citizens would pay the moneys necessary to continue services as they
currently exist. To do less than what is proposed would require significant cuts in service and would go
against the will of the voters. Regarding the EMS levy, if the City does not take the money, Snohomish
County will.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER - VAN
HOLLEBEKE, THAT THE COUNCIL DETERMINE AN UNMET, SUBSTANTIAL NEED
EXISTS AND THE COUNCIL HAS AS A RESULT LEVIED PROPERTY TAX IN THE AMOUNT
OF 3 %, RECAPTURE OF UNASSESSED PROPERTY TAX IN THE AMOUNT OF 1.42 %, AND
ASSESS AN EMS LEVY FOR 2000 AT THE RATE OF 6 %. MOTION CARRIED (Councilmember
Nordquist was not present for the vote.)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 13
Mr. Snyder advised the resolution would be presented on the November 30 Consent Agenda.
7. BUDGET DISCUSSION
dget
Discussion
Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler reviewed scenarios discussed during previous budget
discussions including the 2000 base revenue and additional revenues being discussed such as a 3%
property tax, the 3% EMS levy, utility tax on sewer, telephone tax reallocation, non- resident business
license fee, and the transfer from the emergency reserve which results in a total adjusted revenue of
$20,420,000. She observed that amount changed as a result of the action taken in Item 6. She referred to
proposed basic expenditures and items under discussion for replacement including fimding necessary to
avoid layoffs, restoring funding to the Senior Center, Alliance, and flower program, restoring the
Community Services Director which total $21,135,000 thereby creating a deficit between revenues and
expenditures of $715,000. She reviewed the available cash carry forward and ending cash balance of
$434,000. She said the inclusion of the EMS levy, the reduction of the Community Services Director
position increased the ending cash balance from $434,000 to $502,000. She said assuming the same
revenue sources are in place for 2001 but omitting the one time transfer from the emergency reserve
results in a revenue total of $20,183,000. Subtracting the City's base expenditures, adjusted at the
average rate of inflation (approximately 5 %), leaves a deficit in 2001 of approximately $1.7 million. She
commented these amounts will change as a result of the increases approved in Item 6.
Councilmember Haakenson observed the 6% EMS levy and the recapture of protected levy at 1.42%
would generate approximately $600,000, leaving a deficit ending cash balance for 2000 of $500,000.
Councilmember Plunkett said the resources to restore the public safety positions had not been included.
Ms. Hetzler advised they had been omitted in error. For Councilmember Plunkett, Chief Hickok
explained his cuts originally included all part-time employees, one clerk via retirement, one clerk via
layoff and two patrol openings via an officer who is retiring and another transferring to the academy. He
understood the discussion at the last budget session restored the part-time positions, eliminated staff
layoff but did not fill the open patrol positions. He said the 007 Fund, 1 /10ffi of the sales tax which is
dedicated to public safety, contains some excess from the past few years. He said the $156,000 in that
fund could be used to fund some of the people considered for layoff. In conversation with
Councilmember Haakenson yesterday, he recommended the $156,000 be saved for 2001 due to the
uncertainty of assistance from the Legislature. Chief Hickok said as the Police Chief, he would
obviously like to be at full staff, noting the Edmonds Police Department operates with the smallest ratio
of officers per thousand (1.3) of any major Snohomish County city and Edmonds is the second largest
city in Snohomish County. Lynnwood operates at a ratio of 1.8 and Mountlake Terrace at a ratio of 1.8.
As a team player, he will "sit on those positions" for 3 -4 months as Councilmember Haakenson
requested to determine how the Legislature reacts and how the 2001 budget looks. He said he does not
want to hire someone and later lay him/her off, noting it takes 7 months to get an officer through the
academy.
Councilmember Plunkett observed Chief Hickok was satisfied that he could, in the short term, protect the
City at the same standard as before. Chief Hickok said it was rare for the Police Department to be at full
strength due to officers off due to injury, etc. and they are normally 1 -2 officers down throughout the
year. He said he did not want to lose those two positions, and would eventually like to refill them.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Attachment 4 and suggested the Council consider putting the
$19,215 in Fire Department overtime back in the budget. He asked Fire Chief Tom Tomberg why
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 14
funding the Fire Department overtime was necessary. Chief Tomberg answered the collective labor
agreement with the Edmonds Fire Department requires when a fire station is open that there be a
minimum of three people on duty (three people for three fire stations). However, due to KELLY days,
illness, injury, etc. a considerable amount of overtime is necessary to keep all stations open. He said
reductions in overtime make if difficult to keep the fire stations staffed per the labor agreement and for
life and safety reasons.
Council President Miller agreed the issue of overtime was very important and said holding off on hiring
two police officers would have a significant impact. He asked Chief Hickok if restoring Police
Department overtime would be helpful. Chief Hickok said they generally underfund their overtime
budget and keep a close watch on the amount. He acknowledged the overtime budget is over now due to
two homicides but patrol is approximately at the appropriate level. He said any additional overtime
funding would be used prudently.
Council President Miller was supportive of restoring $20,000 in Fire Department $20,000 to the Police
Department to cover for shortages as a result of the cuts in those departments.
Councilmember Van. Hollebeke referred to Attachment 5, a prioritized list of restorations to the Parks
and Recreation budget. He pointed out these are quality of life issues, items the citizens enjoy, many of
which recapture fees. Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde agreed Parks and Recreation tries to
establish fee - reimbursed programming, such as the swimming pool. To reduce their budget, nearly four
weeks were eliminated from the pool schedule, reducing the open period to 71 days. One of the
scenarios for restoring Parks and Recreation funding was restoring the pool for 14 days. She pointed out
although there are expenditures for that period, there are also revenues of approximately $6,000.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke recalled Yost Pool has on average approximately broken even. Ms.
Ohlde said they capture approximately 95 -100 %, although the pool lost money last year due to the
amount of rain. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said returning the normal pool operating season
(Memorial Day to Labor Day) was to have been included as a scenario for consideration and would cost
an additional $20,000. Ms. Ohlde agreed the remaining cuts to the Parks and Recreation Budget was to
have included restoring the Yost Pool schedule to 102 days.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked the Council to support funding Yost Pool during its normal
seasonal period (102 days from Memorial Day to Labor Day). He explained the total additional funding
would be $45,000, the $25,000 in additional budget items as indicated on Attachment 5 as well as
restoring the remaining 14 days at the cost of $20,000.
Councilmember Haakenson observed Councilmembers have requested $85,000 in additional funding be
restored in the budget. He requested Ms. Hetzler bring back for Council discussion the impact of
restoring funding for Fire and Police Department overtime, extending Yost pool operation with offsetting
revenues, and restoring Public Safety support personnel that were cut including the Public Safety
custodian and the Fire Department mechanic. He requested the Council be prepared to discuss how to
fund these items at next week's budget discussion, noting the original scenario discussed prior to,
recapturing the excess levy capacity had an extra $25,000 available.
CUP 7A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE -99 -134
E -99 -134
Waive Fees Council President Miller explained over the weekend the Council received a.letter from Randy Clark and
Ken Ketchum regarding a CUP fee and a hardship. This .evening he received a memo from staff
indicating the Planning Department was willing to waive the- fee but that required Council action.
Edmonds City Council Approved. Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 15
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY . COUNCILMEMBER
HAAKENSON, TO WAIVE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH BE -99 -134. MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.)
Public 8. REPORT ON PUBLIC SAFETY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Safety
Complex Mayor Fahey advised the project continues to move forward on schedule. During her tour of the facility
today, discussion included coordination of the heating systems with carpet installation and installation of
the modular units in time to move in over the weekend of December 18. She said lines are being pulled
this weekend so that the communication lines will be in place prior to move -in. She anticipated the
Police and Fire Departments and Court Administration could be moved into the new building on
weekend of December 18. She said a dedication/open house was planned for December 29. She
commented in order to obtain a temporary occupancy permit, parking for City staff will be provided in
off - street parking lots; however, adequate parking cannot be provided to utilize the court or Council
Chambers until the on -site parking lots and landscaping are completed.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
MILLER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 25 MINUTES UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION
CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.)
Develop-
9. DISCUSSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEES-FOR-YEAR. 2000
ent
Services
Development Services Director Ray Miller advised the proposed Development Services fee increases
Were not related to I -695. When he was hired 11 months ago, his goal was to run the department like a
business and have revenues equal expenses on an annual basis. He said the department is not currently at
full cost recovery. By separating out the non - development projects in ' the 1999 budget, their
development revenue was $911;300 compared to expenses .of $1,378,000, a deficit of approximately
$467,000 not including overhead. He advised since the Finance Committee reviewed the proposed
Development Services fee increases at their meeting on September 13, staff has made additional
revisions to the proposed fees.
Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained staff has been considering the issue of permit fees for a
number of years., A fee increase was instituted at the beginning of the year in an attempt to recover more
of the cost of processing permits. He advised the Council packet included an analysis of all fees in
Planning, Building, and Engineering as well as other miscellaneous fees. Following the presentation'of a
fee proposal to the Finance Committee, further analysis was done on other direct services that are
provided but for which.no costs are recovered such as site inspections, etc. This resulted in development
of further data regarding possible costs and an appropriate fee to cover those costs. He reviewed a
suggestion for a $5 Permit System Surcharge to pay for maintaining and updating the City's permit
tracking system. He described a proposal for the City to contract with a sign company to provide public
notice signs for development applications as well as public notices required by the City Clerk's Office.
The signs would provide greater visibility thereby increasing public notice and the opportunity for the
public to participate in public processes. By contracting directly with the sign company, they would
manufacture the signs, store the signs, install the signs upon request, and remove the signs when no
longer required. He pointed out this would free up staff time and not place a burden on property owners.
He anticipated the cost of the program to the applicant would be approximately. $150 per sign; compared
to other.cities who refer applicants to sign companies who charge approximately $300 - $400 per sign.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 16
Mr. Wilson said another topic for future consideration is impact fees, which can be used to cover capital
expenditures. However, to implement such a program would require an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. He said although establishing impact fees would be a long -term effort, it is a tool
that could be utilized to address the additional burden new development places on the city.
Mr. Wilson reviewed the fees proposed in the spreadsheet attached to the Council packet:. He explained
appeals are an anomaly and most jurisdictions grossly undercharge the cost of an appeal to ensure the
public has the ability to utilize the appeal process. He explained the average staff time to process an
appeal is 21 hours; therefore the cost of processing the appeal and a portion of the cost of the Hearing
Examiner totals approximately $1,300. Under the proposed fees, the appeal fee would be $300. He said
many jurisdictions consider this the cost of providing public service and ensuring the public has the
ability to participate in the process.
Mr. Wilson said approximately $23,000 in planning fees were generated in 1998 for the 190 permits
processed. Approximately $197,000 in revenues would have been generated utilizing the proposed fee
schedule. He observed the proposed fees still would not recover all costs but was a more accurate
reflection of costs. For Building, staff determined approximately $150,000 in additional revenue would
have been generated in 1998 using the proposed fee schedule. For Engineering, approximately $60,000
in fees are generated on average. Based on the proposed fee structure, an additional $30,000 in revenue
would be generated.
Councilmember Haakenson asked how the proposed fees compared to fees charged by other
jurisdictions, particularly Lynnwood and Mill Creek. Mr. Wilson answered it is difficult to compare
Lynnwood's fees because they require a deposit and charge the applicant the cost of processing the
permit, refunding any overage and billing for any overage. He said although this is a non - traditional
approach, it is used in other jurisdictions such as Bothell and Redmond. He explained Lynnwood
requires a $2,000 deposit for processing a CUP plus $90 for public notice. Edmonds' fee of $1,000 is
comparable to the cost of processing a CUP in Lynnwood. Mill Creek's fees are comparable to what
Edmonds currently charges and are somewhat less than the proposed fees. He said the proposed fees are
comparable to the fees charged by many other cities.
Councilmember Haakenson asked if Lynnwood had software that tracked their billable hours. Mr.
Wilson answered it could be a software program or a paper record. He said staff time spent processing
permits in Edmonds is tracked and that information was utilized to develop the estimated staff time in the
fee proposal. However, staff does not track postage, copies, etc. and the existing software does not allow
these items: to be tracked. He said the $5 surcharge would allow the City to acquire a system that could
track detailed information regarding true costs.
Councilmember Haakenson inquired about the $1,300 cost to process an appeal. Mr. Wilson explained
that total cost of an appeal to the Hearing Examiner including staff time to process the appeal, holding
the hearing, and a prorated share of the Hearing Examiner's contract was slightly over $1,300. The
proposed fee is $300. Appeal fees in other jurisdictions are also low, ranging from $100 to $350 in the
six jurisdictions surveyed. He said $300 appears to be within the acceptable amount, preserving the
ability for the public to exercise their right to an, appeal but making the fee high enough to ensure the .
appellant is serious. He said the. City's current appeal fee is $100 plus a $200 deposit for the cost of
preparing transcripts. The fee is recoverable if the applicant prevails at Superior Court. He said if the
Council wanted to recover the cost of processing an appeal, the fee could be higher and allow some
recovery if an applicant prevails.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, ' 1999
Page 17
For Councilmember Van .Hollebeke, Mr. Wilson explained the total additional revenue that could be
generated in the three departments utilizing the proposed fees was $330,000 ($150,000 in Building,
$30,000 in Engineering, and $151,000 in Planning). He advised this amount was not included in the
2000 budget.
For Councilmember White, Building Official Jeannine Graf explained the $50 swimming pool drain fee
and the fee for re- roofing a single- family residence.
Councilmember White said it is never appropriate to require a fee for an appeal if the appeal is
successful.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE FEE PROPOSAL AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE
REFLECTING THE FEE INCREASES, ACCOMMODATING THE REFUND OF APPEAL FEES
IF AN APPEAL IS SUCCESSFUL.
Councilmember Plunkett commented Development Services Director Ray Miller is doing a great job
making his department more efficient and effective.
MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAAKENSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.)
10. MAYOR'S REPORT
Public Mayor Fahey reported next week's Council meeting will include a public hearing on the selection of
Hearing on public art for the traffic circle in downtown Edmonds. She observed this is a somewhat controversial
Selection of
Public Art and heated issue. She said the proposed public art has the feel and flavor of a gazebo and encouraged the
for Traffic public to view the artist's proposal on display at the Frances Anderson Center. She said there is a
Circle misunderstanding that if the $75,000 is not spent, it can be reallocated to other needs within the City or
allocated for a different piece of public art. She stressed the $75,000 is a restricted gift provided by the
Edmonds Art Festival Board solely for the commission of public art for the traffic circle.
Mayor Fahey advised there is the potential there will be more people than can be accommodated in the
Library Plaza Room due to occupancy limitations. Those who cannot gain access to the room will be
allowed to sign up and given the opportunity to speak as time allows. She said separate sign -up sheets
will be provided for pro and con views and comments will be alternated. She said the public hearing is.
scheduled for 90 minutes, part of which is the description of the selection process and the presentation of
the artwork. She urged groups to have a spokesperson.
Mayor Fahey wished citizens a Happy Thanksgiving, advising City offices will be closed Thursday and
Friday.
stmas
e Mayor Fahey reminded of the Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony at Centennial Plaza on Saturday,
rating. November 27 from 4:00 to 6:30 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 18
11. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
Council President Miller advised Councilmember Earling was absent fr om tonight's meeting because he
was in Washington DC on a business trip regarding transit issues. Council President Miller thanked staff
who attended tonight's meeting and for thinking outside the box during budget workshops. He expressed
his appreciation to staff for their wholehearted effort to resolve the budget issues.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
dry �`iF.�a J •' �
BARBARA S. FAHEY, AYOR ." SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 1999
Page 19
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
NOVEMBER 23, 1999
SPECIAL MEETING
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1999
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35900 THROUGH #37445 FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 15, 1999,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $207,788.17. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #26695 THROUGH #26311 FOR
THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $437,639.55.
APPROVAL OF POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999 HOLIDAY BUY -BACK PAYROLL WARRANTS #26802
THROUGH #26858 IN THE AMOUNT OF $116,829.68.
(D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999
(E) UPDATE OF CITYWIDE YEAR 2000 PREPARATION EFFORTS
(F) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2.10, CONFIRMATION AND DUTIES OF CITY
OFFICERS, AND CHAPTER 2.35, VACATION AND SICK LEAVE
3. (10 Min.) DISCUSSION WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVE MIKE COOPER REGARDING LOCAL IMPACTS OF 1 -695
4. (30 Min.) CLOSED RECORD MEETING — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO APPROVE AN
APPLICATION BY OLYMPIC VIEW DELI FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 3 SIGNS TOTALING 21 SQUARE
FEET IN AREA TO BE MOUNTED ON 3 SIDES OF THE EXISTING GAS PUMP ISLAND CANOPY OVER THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN HEIGHT OF 14 FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1011
PUGET DRIVE AND IS ZONED "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS — BN." (Appellant: Roger Hertrich / File No.
AP -99 -197 / Applicant: Olympic View Deli / File No. V -99 -134)
5. (40 Min.) CLOSED RECORD MEETING — APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION TO
APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY DOUGLAS SPEE FOR A MIXED -USE BUILDING INCORPORATING
COMMERCIAL USES AND PARKING ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE 2ND
AND 3RD FLOORS. THE DEVELOPMENT ALSO INCLUDES AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 307 BELL STREET AND 210 3RD AVENUE NORTH AND IS ZONED
"COMMUNITY BUSINESS -BC." (Appellant: James A. Mallonee / File No. AP -99 -201 / Applicant: Douglas
Spee / File No. ADB -98 -191)
6. (20 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ESTABLISHING PROPERTY TAX LEVIES FOR THE YEAR 2000
7. (30 Min.) BUDGET DISCUSSION
8. (10 Min.) REPORT ON PUBLIC SAFETY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
9. (15 Min.) DISCUSSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEES FOR THE YEAR 2000
10. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
11. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS /UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (415) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special
accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday at noon
and 7:00 p. m., as well as Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46