05/28/2002 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
May 28, 2002
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding labor negotiations, and
meeting with the newly appointed members of the Historic Preservation Committee at 7:00 p.m., the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:15 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
Dave Earling, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Richard Marin, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Minh Truong, Investment Accountant
Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator
Zach Lell, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Plunkett requested Approval of the Teamsters Labor Contract be added to the Consent
Agenda.
hange to COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
he Agenda ADD APPROVAL OF THE TEAMSTERS LABOR CONTRACT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA
AS ITEM H AND CONSIDERATION OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
COLLEGE CENTER FOR FAMILIES CAPITAL CAMPAIGN AS ITEM 3A. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 1
Historic 3. CONFIRMATION OF NEWLY APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Preservation COMMISSION
Commission
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL -MEMBER WILSON, TO
CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to the citizens who have agreed to serve on the
Commission.
Edmonds 3A. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Community CENTER FOR FAMILIES CAPITAL CAMPAIGN
College
Center for
Families Council President Earling explained there has been an effort underway by Edmonds Community College
to create a Center for Families. He explained the fundraising goal for the Center is $4 million; they
currently have $3.6 million or $3.9 million. Council President Earling remarked this would be an
important addition to the greater community as there were many displaced individuals returning to school
at Edmonds Community College and there were families in the area in need of a safe place for their
children to begin their education. He expressed his support for this project.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 2
(A)
ROLL CALL
Approve
5/21/02
(B)
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2002
Minutes
pprove
(C)
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #55698 THROUGH #55829 FOR THE WEEK OF
laim
MAY 20, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $354,231.37. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT
hecks
DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #32683 THROUGH #32794 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1
Approve
THROUGH MAY 15, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $842,015.72
Formal Plat -
Edmonds
(E)
FINAL APPROVAL OF A 10 LOT FORMAL PLAT LOCATED AT EDMONDS WAY
Way and
AND 96TH AVENUE WEST (Applicant: Michel Construction / File No. P-2001-105)
96 Ave. W.
Lift Station
(F)
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE
No. 1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R.W. BECK, INC. FOR THE LIFT
Project
STATION NO. 1 PROJECT
Mid
(G)
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS
Waterfront/
FROM CONSULTANTS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE MID -WATERFRONT
Bulkhead
Project
WALKWAY/BULKHEAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
eamsters
(H)
APPROVAL OF THE TEAMSTERS LABOR CONTRACT
Labor
ontract
Item D: Approval
of Law Enforcement Supportive Service Employees Labor Agreement
Councilmember Petso indicated she planned to vote against this item as she felt the parameters on cost of
living increases
were significantly disadvantageous to the City.
Law
Enforcement
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING,
Supportive
FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO
Service
OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows:
Employees
Labor
ontract
(D)
APPROVAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORTIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES LABOR
AGREEMENT
Historic 3. CONFIRMATION OF NEWLY APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Preservation COMMISSION
Commission
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL -MEMBER WILSON, TO
CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to the citizens who have agreed to serve on the
Commission.
Edmonds 3A. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Community CENTER FOR FAMILIES CAPITAL CAMPAIGN
College
Center for
Families Council President Earling explained there has been an effort underway by Edmonds Community College
to create a Center for Families. He explained the fundraising goal for the Center is $4 million; they
currently have $3.6 million or $3.9 million. Council President Earling remarked this would be an
important addition to the greater community as there were many displaced individuals returning to school
at Edmonds Community College and there were families in the area in need of a safe place for their
children to begin their education. He expressed his support for this project.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 2
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
TO CONTRIBUTE $5,000 TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE CENTER FOR
FAMILIES CAPITAL CAMPAIGN WITH FUNDS TO COME FROM NON -DEPARTMENTAL
MISCELLANEOUS.
Councilmember Petso commented this was awkward for her because it was always nice to be in a
position to donate funds to good causes. Although she did not doubt this was a good cause, she was
concerned that by donating to this project, it would be nearly impossible to say no to anyone else who
asked for funds for their cause. She suggested donations be done in coordination with other budget items
and charitable giving be prioritized over the year. She suggested each Department Director could
identify an important project for the community if they were provided $5,000. She noted the project was
not technically located within the boundaries of the City although she acknowledged it was within the
community. She expressed concern that this may be an illegal gift of public funds and asked the City
Attorney to comment.
City Attorney Zach Lell explained the benchmark standard for determining whether a gift of public funds
has occurred considers factors such as donor intent. Although the City was free to donate to causes that
directly benefited the poor and infirm, he would need to research further the extent to which that
occurred in this instance. He offered to review the proposed donation further and report to the Council.
Council President Earling offered to amend his motion to condition the vote on a report from the City
Attorney on the status of this donation contribution. Councilmember Dawson agreed.
Councilmember Dawson commented she did not believe this was an illegal gift of public funds. She
noted that studies show early childhood education before kindergarten is incredibly important to a child's
success in the future, however, the State of Washington does not fund education before kindergarten.
Having a center in the community that would serve residents of the City and give them access to pre-
kindergarten education, and provide a safe place for parents going back to school to bring their children,
would be incredibly valuable to the community. She commented it was unfortunate the City did not have
more to give; Lynnwood was giving $25,000 to the Center. If the Center had not reached its goal by the
time the budget was developed, she supported donating more money to this worthwhile project.
Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
TO APPROVE THE CONTRIBUTION OF $5,000 TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
CENTER FOR FAMILIES CAPITAL CAMPAIGN CONDITIONED ON A REPORT FROM CITY
ATTORNEY ZACH LELL. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED.
Award for
City's 4. RECEIPT OF CERTIFICATION OF EXCELLENCE AWARD FOR THE CITY'S INVESTMENT
Investment POLICY
Policy
Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler explained last year the City of Edmonds requested a
review of its investment policy from the Washington Municipal Treasurers' Association. The
Association's peer review committee evaluated the City's policy for adherence with applicable state
statutes, judicial decisions and legal opinions governing the investment of public funds. Upon
completion of its review, the committee certified that the City's investment policy conforms to the
standards established by the Washington Municipal Treasurers' Association and awarded the City a
Certification of Excellence.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 3
Ms. Hetzler introduced Minh Truong, the City's Investment Accountant, explaining Mr. Truong, who
requested the review from the Washington Municipal Treasurers' Association, administers the daily
investment and cash management program and is one of the primary authors of the investment policy.
Ms. Hetzler presented Mr. Truong with the Certificate of Excellence Award for the City's Investment
Policies.
Joint 5. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD
Meeting
with the Planning Boardmembers Jim Crim, Virginia Cassutt, Cary Guenther, and John Dewhirst (Chair)
Planning introduced themselves. Boardmembers Wayne Zhan, Joanne Noel and Jim Young were unable to attend.
Board
Planning Board Chair Dewhirst explained the Planning Board spent a great deal of time in 200,11 working
on the Design Guidelines and the new process — 18 work sessions, 2 joint hearings with the Architectural
Design Board (ADB), and 4 public hearings on the new guidelines and new ADB process.: He was
hopeful that at their next meeting, the Planning Board would forward the guidelines to the Council. The
Planning Board also worked on the Comprehensive Plan including updates to several elements and a new
Park Plan. He advised the Planning Board also approved and forwarded the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places to the Council. The Planning Board held nine work sessions and two public hearings and
forwarded a recommendation to the Council regarding the Planned Residential Development ordinance.
The Planning Board held public hearings on five code amendments including a significant change to the
single family and multifamily parking standards, location of churches, and definition of streets. The
Planning Board also held public hearings and forwarded a recommendation to Council on ,four site-
specific rezones.
Mr. Dewhirst explained the Planning Board was currently working on a new mixed-use zoning district
around Stevens Hospital, which may require an area rezone. He noted this was being deferred until work
on the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan was completed later this year.
Mr. Dewhirst noted this was the second year the Planning Board has held a retreat/work session where
they review what they accomplished and whether anything could be done better, review work with staff,
and set the agenda for the coming year. During the past two meetings, the Planning Board held public
hearings and forwarded a recommendation to Council on two new master planned zoning districts and
rezone of the Pt. Edwards site which will be on the Council agenda in the near future. Mr. Dewhirst
noted the Planning Board would soon begin its consideration of Comprehensive Plan amendments, the
largest being the new transportation element.
Council President Earling inquired about the Planning Board's workload, whether meetings were long
and/or special meetings required. Planning Boardmember Jim Crim answered the Planning Board
usually meets from 7:00 — 10:00 p.m. Council President Earling asked whether staff was responsive to
the Planning Board's requests. Planning Boardmember Virginia Cassutt answered staff responded very
well; the Planning Board worked well with staff and there were very open lines of communication. Mr.
Dewhirst commented it would not have been possible to accomplish everything the Planning Board had
in the past year without the good working relationship with staff. He noted there had not been any extra
meetings during the past year. He found the monthly meeting with the Mayor and Council President
assisted with the interaction between staff and the Council. Ms. Cassutt commented the Planning Board
has also worked well with the ADB over the past year.
Councilmember Petso inquired about public input at Planning Board meetings, whether there was a lot of
public comment on issues during the Planning Board's review. She expressed frustration with linstances
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 4
when the Planning Board has put a lot of work into an issue and when it is forwarded to Council, there
are numerous comments made to Council, causing her to question whether the Planning Board also heard
that input and took it into consideration when making a decision. Mr. Dewhirst remarked the amount of
public input could always be improved; however, on issues of interest, the public does show up. Ms.
Cassutt agreed it depended entirely on the issue. She noted staff had tried everything possible to ensure
meetings and issues are advertised.
Council President Earling commented any public testimony to the Planning Board was forwarded to the
Council. He questioned whether Councilmember Petso's concern was how to get more people to provide
input on issues. Councilmember Petso explained occasionally an issue was reviewed by the Planning
Board with little public testimony followed by a great deal of public comment at the Council level. She
preferred the public comment be made at the Planning Board level to ensure the Planning Board had the
opportunity to consider the comments and make adjustments as necessary prior to forwarding the issue to
the Council. Mr. Dewhirst commented the Planning Board has worked to improve this by grouping
subject matters and working on issues in a concentrated timeframe so that the public knows the issue will
be discussed at the next meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether there was anything the Council could do to make the Planning
Board's work more efficacious. Mr. Dewhirst noted that was discussed at the Planning Board retreat and
it was determined there was nothing the Council needed to do to assist the Planning Board.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled reading in Planning Board or ADB minutes that boardmembers wished
for more direction from Council. Ms. Cassutt answered that had not occurred recently because the
Planning Board received better direction at the beginning of the process.
Councilmember Orvis noted Planning Boardmembers were not compensated for their efforts. He
inquired how many hours a week boardmembers spent. Mr. Dewhirst answered the Board met twice a
month from approximately 7:00 — 10:00 p.m. and spent 2-4 hours per meeting reviewing materials prior
to the meeting.
Mr. Dewhirst encouraged the Council to maintain the Planning Board's small training budget ($1,000)
during the upcoming difficult financial times. He noted most of the boardmembers were laypersons in
other fields and needed training regarding the Comprehensive Plans, GMA, etc. Ms. Cassutt noted
boardmembers avail themselves of free training but it would be helpful to attend other training that is
available.
Mr. Dewhirst explained the work plan for the remaining six months of 2002 would focus on the updates
and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The biggest were the Transportation Element and a new
Comprehensive Plan map. He explained the existing Comprehensive Plan map used "bubbles" to
designate property; the new Comprehensive Plan map would have lot-specific designations. He noted
GMA required this level of detail. The Planning Board will also be working on a new urban design plan
for streets, a stormwater drainage plan, and begin an update of the development code. Mr. Dewhirst
noted the Planning Board would also be considering site-specific requests as they arise as well as the
annual update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Dewhirst recalled last year the Planning Board and Council discussed Hwy. 99 and he was pleased
that a subcommittee had begun to focus on Hwy. 99. He encouraged the Council to delve into Hwy. 99
quickly as there were some interesting opportunities that would not last long such as the K-Mart
property.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what the City could do with regard to the K-Mart property. Mr. Dewhirst
commented that was part of the problem — the City wondering what it could do. The subcommittee
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 5
planned to look at what the City could do outside the traditional methods. Ms. Cassutt commented the
City may be able to identify a use/user they would like to have on the property rather than wait until
someone comes along.
Mayor Haakenson commented the City was working on that currently. Councilmember Plunkett inquired-
whether
nquiredwhether the City was recruiting someone to locate on the K -Mart property. Mayor Haakenson advised
the City was speaking with some possible tenants.
Councilmember Plunkett noted the City did not own the K -Mart property and questioned hove the City
would effect who purchased the property. Council President Earling commented the City could look at
the existing policies to ensure they were functional and what could be done to make it easier fo�ll someone
to put a business in that location. Ms. Cassutt agreed the Planning Board's intent was to make it easier
and more attractive, including looking at the Hwy. 99 corridor and doing rezones if necessary.
Mayor Haakenson commented when a developer looks at a site such as the K -Mart property., the first
thing they do is come to the City to discuss policies and whether they could accomplish their intent.
When staff finds developers balk at a particular policy or zoning issue or code, it was appropriate to
advise the Planning Board or Council that the type of development the City would like to have was not
possible due to the codes, ordinances, attitudes, etc.
Councilmember Dawson commented K -Mart was in the process of bankruptcy which creates additional
complications with regard to the sale of the property. Mayor Haakenson advised K -Mart did not own the
property, it was owned by a private landowner.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
i
There were no members of the public present who wished to address the Council.
Public 7• EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT REQUEST TO DEFER REIMBURSEMENT OF
Facilities COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CITY PROVIDED SERVICES
District
Request to Community Services Director Stephen Clifton referred to a memo in the Council packet dated, May 23,
Defer
Reimburse- 2002, from the Public Facilities District (PFD) Board. The memorandum outlines the PFD Board's
ent of request to the Council to defer repayment of costs associated with City provided services and
osts expenditures such as staff time, Ogden Murphy Wallace (attorneys) time, etc. spent on PFD activities.
Mr. Clifton introduced PFD Boardmember James Monroe who would highlight the request. ' he Board
would then introduce Christine Lund, who was hired recently by the Edmonds PFD Board to serve as the
Project Manager to assist with responding to the contingencies imposed by the Snohomish County PFD
Board in April.
Mr. Monroe explained the Council provided the Edmonds PFD Board $34,000 when the Board was
established on the basis that two-thirds of the amount collected would be repaid when practical,based on
funds coming in. He explained due to contingencies imposed by the City and Snohomish County PFD,
the Edmonds PFD Board has been forced to retain professional services sooner than originally
anticipated, resulting in a situation where sales and use tax revenue will not cover the necessary costs in
the near term. Mr. Monroe explained the request to defer repayment was a matter of timing and assured
the PFD Board would pay the funds back in the future.
Mr. Monroe explained in addition to deferring repayment, the memorandum outlines the PFD Board's
request that the Council authorize the PFD Board to utilize up to $50,000 from the proposed 2003 Parks
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 6
Department budget to conduct a study to examine the feasibility of a community arts facility. The PFD
Board further requests that the $50,000 be moved forward in the budget cycle to 2002.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the funds to be reimbursed to the City would go the Lodging Tax
Fund. Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler answered the $20,000 would be refunded to the
Hotel/Motel Tax Fund. Councilmember Petso inquired about the approximate balance in the Lodging
Tax Fund. Ms. Hetzler did not have that information available.
Councilmember Petso explained since the Council made the appropriation from the Lodging Tax Fund,
the fund has experienced its first year of not having a margin and the fund balance was recently as low as
$1,000. She was concerned with this low balance should someone who had been promised money from
the fund submit a request for funds. She explained that, similar to the PFD, the Lodging Tax Fund was
experiencing a cash flow issue. However, her understanding was that the largest consumer of funds, the
Chamber of Commerce, most of their funds were expended at the beginning of the year. Unfortunately
most of the revenue was received after the summer months. Chamber of Commerce Executive Director
Chris Guitton indicated -the Chamber does not anticipate any other projects until Christmas, when
Councilmember Petso hoped the Lodging Tax Fund would have sufficient hotel revenues. She supported
approving the request to defer repayment upon Ms. Hetzler's assurance that if a cash flow problem
occurred, she could handle it.
For Council President Earling, Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde explained the $50,000 was in
the Park Capital Fund. Through the Comprehensive Planning process, these funds were designated in
2003 for studying the feasibility of a cultural arts center. This was an option to use those funds in
conjunction with the PFD to obtain a document that would have the same outcome if the City conducted
the study independently. She expressed her support for the PFD's request to use $50,000 budgeted in the
Park Capital Fund to examine the feasibility of a community arts facility.
Councilmember Plunkett commented moving the $50,000 forward in the budget cycle would result in
using ending cash balance from this year's 125 Fund. Ms. Hetzler agreed.
Councilmember Dawson inquired whether the Edmonds PFD had previously conducted a feasibility
study. Mr. Monroe answered a market demand feasibility study was completed previously that addressed
hotel space, convention space, etc., before the PFD focused on the Puget Sound Christian College
(PSCC) site. Mr. Clifton explained the study would assist the PFD Board in conducting due diligence to
determine the viability. He noted this was different than the market demand and feasibility study that
was prepared in November 2002. The Edmonds PFD Board's goal was to demonstrate viability to the
Snohomish County PFD in order to secure $2.6 million in funding.
Councilmember Dawson asked about the difference between viability and market demand and feasibility.
Mr. Clifton agreed they were similar. He explained the enabling legislation that created the Snohomish
County PFD requires other PFDs to demonstrate viability. He explained the market demand and
feasibility study was one step in a multi -step process; a business plan was developed and now the
Edmonds PFD Board must refine the business plan, address market demand issues, sensitivity analysis
issues, refine operating expenses, etc. to demonstrate viability to Snohomish County PFD. He referred to
the Snohomish County PFD Board's report to the Snohomish County Council that indicates at this time
they do not believe the Edmonds PFD Board has a viable project but in time they may. Councilmember
Dawson concluded the study would demonstrate viability to Snohomish County PFD rather than to
determine whether the project was viable.
Councilmember Dawson questioned what the $50,000 would be used for. Mr. Clifton answered it would
be used to conduct ongoing due diligence activities including hiring consultants such as a Project
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 7
Manager, consultants responsible for preparing a fundraising feasibility analysis, securing letters of
intent, etc.
Councilmember Petso recalled when the PFD Board was established, the idea was that it could be done
largely using funds that were already going to the state via sales and use tax and minimal expenditures
from Lodging Tax Funds and matching staff time, basically a no -cost proposition. However, with the
request for $50,000, it now appears the PFD has become more costly. She questioned whether the
activities described by Mr. Clifton such as a fundraising feasibility analysis were the same as outlined in
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clifton did not recall that this would be a fully funded process using the
sales and use tax rebate to the Edmonds PFD. He did recall revenue projections of approximately
$160,000 for 2001 and the same for 2002, noting thus far those estimates are accurate. What has
occurred is that the project has evolved and the type of information to be provided to the Snohomish
County PFD has evolved. He recalled informing the Council when the PFD Board was created in 2001
that the Board was an autonomous body with a dedicated revenue source. In the enabling legislation, the
Council provided $34,000 to assist the process but stated they would be willing to provide legal services,
finance services, and other staff time but the PFD Board would be required to repay the City when
practical. He explained the Edmonds PFD Board's requirement to respond to the Snohomigh County
PFD Board in a compressed timeline would cause a deficit in the PFD Board's budget if the City required
repayment at this time.
Councilmember Petso indicated she was not concerned with deferring repayment but was conc rned with
the request for $50,000. She questioned whether the Edmonds PFD could be required to pay back that
amount or if the Council was being asked to provide those funds outright. Mr. Clifton answered the
Council could require the PFD to reimburse those funds also.
Council President Earling explained that after the recent Snohomish County PFD Board meeting, the
Board's Chair, Travis Snider, offered to meet with the Edmonds PFD Board at key points curing this
timeline to ensure the Snohomish County PFD Board's expectations are being met. Mr. Monroe noted
the Edmonds PFD Board would be providing an update to the Snohomish County PFD Board ion Friday
and would schedule meetings with Mr. Snider on a regular basis.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Petso asked how the study to be conducted by the PFD Board compared with the study
proposed in the Comprehensive Plan, especially the specific items mentioned by Mr. Clifton, such as
fundraising feasibility analysis. Ms. Ohlde discussed that the same questions would be answered if the
Edmonds PFD Board did not exist and the City was studying a cultural arts center/performing arts center
in the community. She noted this was an opportunity to partner with the PFD Board who would delve
further than a study the City could conduct with $50,000. She noted the same questions would have to be
answered if the City conducted the study. Even if in the end the PFD was not successful, these would be
public documents that were available to the City.
Councilmember Petso asked if there was anything the PFD Board would not study that the City's would
have studied. Ms. Ohlde answered no, noting the criteria the Council and Snohomish County PFD Board
established required deeper investigation than the City's study would have required. She concluded this
would be a very thorough review of this project.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the $50,000 was required because the Snohomish County PFD
has raised its expectations. Mr. Clifton answered yes, noting the short timeframe has condensed the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 8
timeline. To date the consultants the PFD Board has contracted with have been agreeable to a multi -
month payment schedule, allowing the PFD Board to pay them as funds are received from the revenue
stream of approximately $10,000 - $12,000 per month. The PFD Board is now required to secure
services of additional consultants.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Board would be required to pay a premium for consultants
due to the compressed timeframe. Mr. Clifton stated the Edmonds PFD Board was not expending more
for consulting services than those services were worth. In fact, the Project Manager has agreed to reduce
her hourly rate to assist the PFD Board due to her strong interest in the project and the type of endeavor
the PFD Board has undertaken. The rates for the other consultants the Board interviewed, as well as the
appraisal, were quite reasonable and within the expected range for a consultant.
Mayor Haakenson expressed concern with staff and legal costs projected through the end of 2002
including staff time totaling $30,000. He noted staff was spending a tremendous amount of time on PFD
matters that they could be spending on other projects. He expressed particular concern with legal costs
that, to his knowledge, were unbudgeted and were projected to be $80,000 by year-end. He was
concerned with an agreement that stipulated repayment would occur "when practical." He asked when
the funds would be repaid and whether there was a guarantee of repayment to the City. Ms. Hetzler
answered the interlocal agreement requires the PFD reimburse the City at some point in time but does not
specify the period of time. She assumed if the Council wanted to place a timeline on the deferment, that
would be acceptable. She noted the Edmonds PFD Board should have approximately $13,000 in cash at
the end of 2002 and she estimated the Edmonds PFD would owe the City $66,000. At the rate of
approximately $10,000 per month (the revenue collected by the PFD each month in sales and use taxes),
those funds could be repaid in the first half of 2003. She explained it appeared the PFD had the ability to
pay the funds back but it would take well into 2003 to accomplish it.
Mr. Clifton commented if the Edmonds PFD was successful in obtaining funds from the City and
Snohomish County PFD Board, there would be sufficient funds to pay the City back for the services
rendered to date.
If the Edmonds PFD did not obtain the funds from the Snohomish County PFD, Mayor Haakenson asked
whether the Edmonds PFD could continue to exist for a period of time to enable them to collect the sales
and use tax to repay the City. Mr. Clifton referred to a 2000 memo from the State Auditor that stated as
long as a public facilities district stayed in existence and conducted due diligence activities toward the
eventual development of a regional center, they could continue to collect the sales and use tax without
the penalty of repayment if they ever dissolved.
Councilmember Plunkett assumed this action would require an agenda item on the Consent Agenda. City
Attorney Zach Lell answered that would depend on the format preferred by the City and PFD.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Plunkett commented review and approval of an additional document would extend the
timeframe for the PFD. Mr. Lell explained he could draft a document with minimal effort for the
Council and Edmonds PFD Board's review. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether sufficient time
existed for the Council to conduct a more formal approval process. Mr. Clifton explained neither a
resolution nor an ordinance was necessary, only the Council's consent. He noted this would benefit the
Edmonds PFD Board as it was necessary to secure the services of additional consultants immediately in
order to meet the timelines.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 9
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
DELAY REPAYMENT OF THE APPROXIMATELY $20,000 OWED TO COUNCIL UNTIL THE
END OF THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2003. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
AGREE TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF $50,000 FROM THE PARKS & RECREATION BUDGET
FUND 125 NOW DESIGNATED FOR THE 2003 BUDGET CYCLE.
Councilmember Dawson noted other PFD Boards were able to pay cities back; Lynnwood was on a
monthly repayment schedule. She was troubled that the Edmonds PFD Board was unable to pay back the
moneys they said they would pay back, leading her to question whether this was a viable project. She
noted this began as a high tech remodel of the auditorium but now was down to a bare bones proposal
that cost a great deal. She expressed concern with partnering with a group with whom it was unclear
whether they would buy the PSCC and spending a great deal in staff and attorney time and now another
$50,000 to illustrate that the project was viable. She commented it appeared the study was not to
determine what would make the project viable but just "wrap it up in a nice bow so we can sell it to
someone and try to get some money back down the road." She preferred to step back and allow the
project to succeed or fail on its own without throwing more money at it and without any idea if the City
would be paid back. She supported saving the auditorium but was questioned whether this was the
correct method and preferred other options be explored. She expressed concern with allocating $50,000
given the tentative state of the purchase and sale of the auditorium.
Councilmember Petso shared Councilmember Dawson's concerns, noting Ms. Ohlde's comments
indicated the City would be spending this money anyway to study an arts facility in the City and it would
be more efficient to do it now. She was unsure now whether it would be more efficient or whether the
Edmonds PFD was looking at a different project than the City would be studying in the future.
Councilmember Wilson spoke in favor of the motion, pointing out the Edmonds PFD was not on equal
footing with the Lynnwood PFD because of the disparity in revenues generated from sales and use tax
between the two cities. He noted the $50,000 would result in a document that was useful to the City for
this project or in the future for the project that was foreseen in the Comprehensive Plan. He was hopeful
the return on the investment would be such that the project would move forward and the City would
realize the benefits of retaining the existing auditorium and facility at that location. If not, the
information would benefit the City's efforts in the future.
Councilmember Dawson remarked if Lynnwood's PFD collected more sales and use tax, they would
have more money in the future to keep the project going. If the Edmonds PFD could not keep the project
going long enough to conduct a study and present a proposal, how would the Edmonds PFD have enough
money to continue to run the project?
Councilmember Wilson commented these funds would answer that question one way or the other,
whether this project was viable. By not providing the funds, the answer would never be known.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND DAWSON OPPOSED.
Mr. Monroe introduced Christine Lund, Principal with Lund Consulting, Inc. He explained she was
recently a Project Manager for the Department of Transportation and has personal interest in the arts and
a tremendous background in successful project management and other facilitation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 10
Ms. Lund described her background including the creation of the King County Historic Preservation
Program, overseeing the King County Cultural Resources Division, and then independent consulting and
project management, most recently running the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation. She
remarked she was very motivated by the short timeframe. She welcomed the opportunity to speak with
Councilmembers one-on-one and making reports to the Council.
Council President Earling congratulated the PFD Board for hiring Ms. Lund, hoping this was an example
of the quality of consultants the PFD could attract to the project. He commented he had an opportunity
to work with her on the Governors Blue Ribbon Panel, and her ability to do strategic planning and
consensus building were a rare gift.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
emoal Mayor Haakenson expressed his thanks to the Cemetery Board and Parks staff for doing a terrific job on
Dn
ay the Memorial Day Celebration.
9. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Statewide Council President Earling reported there would be a statewide transportation initiative on the ballot in
Transporta- November. Additionally, the Snohomish, King and Pierce County Councils were currently reviewing a
ion
Initiative regional transportation package. He indicated further information was available by contacting the
Council office. After reviewing the materials, citizens could contact Snohomish County Councilmember
Gary Nelson who was working to develop the project list.
tCouncilmember Wilson reported the Port has been conducting a search for an Executive Director to
replace Bill Toskey who is retiring. He was hopeful there would be an announcement soon regarding the
selection of a new Port Executive Director.
Historic Councilmember Wilson noted although the Historic Preservation Commission had seven members, only
Preservation six were voting members, which could result in a tie vote with no one able to break the tie. He suggested
Commission the City Attorney provide options for amending the composition of the Commission such as allowing the
ex -officio member the ability to break a tie, or reducing or increasing the number of Commissioners.
snoCom Councilmember Dawson reported the SnoCom meeting was very brief but she anticipated a very lengthy
budget meeting tomorrow.
Historic Councilmember Plunkett welcomed Christine Lund and asked for her business card. He advised the first
Preservation Historic Preservation Commission meeting will be June 13, 3rd floor of City Hall. He noted all meetings
Commission-
were open to the public.
10. Executive EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER
Session
At 8:40 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a 60 -minute Executive Session regarding a real
estate matter. He advised no action would be taken following the Executive Session and the Council
would adjourn immediately following its conclusion.
G Y H AbkEMSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2002
Page 11
w AGENDA
- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5t" Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 D.m.
MAY 289 2002
6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding Labor Negotiations
7:00 p.m. - Meet with Newly Appointed Members of the Historic Preservation Commission
7:15 p.m..- Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items 1
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2002
(C) Approval of claim checks #55698 through #55829 for the week of May 20,
2002, in the amount of $354,231.37. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #32683 through #32794 for the period May 1 through May 15, 2002, in
the amount of $842,015.72.
(D) Approval of Law Enforcement Supportive Service Employees Labor Agreement
(E) Final Approval of a 10 Lot Formal Plat located at Edmonds Way and 96th
Avenue West (Applicant: Michel Construction / File No. P-2001-105)
(F) Authorization for Mayor to Sign Addendum No. 2 to the Professional Services
Agreement with R.W. Beck, Inc. for the Lift Station No. 1 Project
(G) Authorization to Advertise for Statements of Qualifications from Consultants
for the Design of the Mid -waterfront Walkway/Bulkhead Improvement Project
3. ( 5 Min.) Confirmation of Newly Appointed Members of the Historic Preservation
Commission
4. ( 5 Min.) Receipt of Certification of Excellence Award for the City's Investment Policy
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MAY 28, 2002
Page 2 of 2 "
5. (60 Min.) Joint Meeting with the Planning Board
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
7. (20 Min.) Edmonds Public Facilities District Request to Defer Reimbursement of Costs
Associated with City Provided Services
8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min.) Individual Council Reports/Updates on Outside Committee/Board Meetings
10. (60 Min.) Executive Session Regarding a Real Estate Matter
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.