04/15/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
APRIL 15, 2003
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Richard Marin, Council President Pro Tem
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Dave Earling, Council President
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
John Westfall, Fire Marshal
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
1
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve
(A)
ROLL CALL
/8/03
Minutes
(B)
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2003.
Approve
Claim
(C)
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #62005 THROUGH #62150 FOR THE WEEK OF
Checks
APRIL 7, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $153,629.27.
onity
Smmu
ervices
(D)
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
Pepartment
Pond Capital
(E)
BOND CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE
rojects
(F)
APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
Liquor
THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
Control
BOARD
Board
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 1
# 3450
water (G) ORDINANCE NO. 3450 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE
tern CHAPTER 7.50 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY TO ADD A NEW SECTION
elopment 7.50.070 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE IN
rge
ORDER TO ESTABLISH A CHARGE TO RECOVER THE COST OF ESTABLISHING
THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO NEW PATRONS
Recognition 3. RECOGNITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR PEGGY HETZLER. A
fPeggy RECEPTION WILL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THE RECOGNITION
Hetzler
Mayor Haakenson thanked Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler for four years of financial
wisdom as well as four years of financial awards she and her staff achieved. Most importantly, he and
the Department Directors thanked Ms. Hetzler for four years of Texas colloquiums that none of them
would soon forget.
Ms. Hetzler remarked she had spent a glorious four years in the City and had enjoyed the people she
worked with and the projects she had been privileged to work on. Although she would miss everyone,
the sunnier climate and her Texas background were calling her back to that area.
Councilmembers expressed their thanks to Ms. Hetzler. Councilmember Plunkett remarked that in
addition to the financial awards, one of Ms. Hetzler's greatest attributes was her availability to citizens
and the Council during four difficult budget years for the City.
Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council meeting to a reception in Ms. Hetzler's honor.
VIding 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised this was a public hearing on a proposal to
reinstitute a Board of Appeals for appeals of the Building Official's interpretation of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC). He explained the City currently utilized a Hearing Examiner for these appeals
following a change in the Code made in 1986 that disbanded the Board of Appeals and empowered the
Hearing Examiner to conduct the appeals. He noted an appeal of the Building Official's interpretation of
the UBC was rare but in 1986 when the change was made, it was thought preferable to consolidate them
under the Hearing Examiner as he was a professional in conducting hearings, although not necessarily
trained in the technical aspects of the UBC.
Mr. Bowman explained that representatives of the development community have since approached the
City requesting the Board of Appeals be reinstated as the Hearing Examiner was not trained in issues
related to the UBC. He explained a Board of Appeals was typically comprised of structural engineers,
architects, builders, fire inspectors, mechanical or electrical experts, etc. who can evaluate a Building
Officials' interpretation of the UBC. He reiterated the Board of Appeals rarely met but when they did,
they addressed technical issues.
Mr. Bowman explained the former Board of Appeals was comprised of seven members. Staff's proposal
is a five member board comprised of four technical people and a lay person. He anticipated five board
members would be appointed as well as several alternates in the event of vacations, unavailability of
board members, etc. He explained an attempt was made to establish a multi jurisdictional board with
Lynnwood and other cities but due to delays in that process, a decision was made to move ahead with
establishing a Board of Appeals in Edmonds. He noted this would not preclude establishing a multi -
jurisdictional Board of Appeals in the future.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 2
Councilmember Plunkett asked why other jurisdictions were not participating. Mr. Bowman answered it
was related to staff time.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Tony Shapiro, Shapiro Architects, 600 Main Street, Edmonds, spoke in support of the proposed
Board of Appeals, noting the structure of the UBC supported this process. He commented one of the
advantages of this type of board was that it allowed input from professionals in the community who were
familiar with new materials, fire ratings, processes, etc. that the Building Official may not be familiar
with. He noted the Hearing Examiner was not familiar with many of the technical issues that may arise
in an appeal of the Building Official's Interpretation of the UBC.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, supported the formation of a Board of Appeals. He
recommended having 2 -3 citizen members on the Board rather than one to avoid a 4 -1 vote.
Rob Michel, 7907 212 1h Street SW, Edmonds, supported a Board of Appeals. He noted this would not
only benefit the community but provide new ideas regarding materials and construction methods. He
commented in the past some of the interpretations have cost developers a lot of money and new ideas
would help reduce those costs.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about Mr. Rutledge's suggestion for more than one lay member on the
board. Mr. Bowman preferred to have four professional members as it was a technical board.
Councilmember Petso expressed concern with the potential for a conflict of interest to arise if local
professionals on the Board of Appeals were making decisions for other local professionals and their
potential concern that they would not be hired for a future project if the decision was not in the
contractor's favor. Mr. Bowman answered that because the Board was comprised of experts, the
members could be from outside or within the community. He pointed out the Board would be required to
make specific findings regarding why they approved a specific material, method, etc. and could not
arbitrarily approve a material, method, etc. He noted he had not seen this conflict arise in his experience
with a Board of Appeals.
Councilmember Petso asked whether Mr. Bowman had experience with a Board of Appeals where an
interpretation cost the project money and another interpretation would not cost as much. Mr. Bowman
answered he could not testify that he had had that experience as typically materials were close in cost.
He acknowledged there could be differences in cost depending on the material, method, etc.
Responding to further questions of Councilmember Petso, Mr. Bowman stated the Board of Appeals was
the decision maker but assured the City would have substantial input into the process; for example with
regard to fire protection, the Fire Marshal would have a great deal of input. He assured the Board of
Appeals was a technical board and must sustain their decisions with facts. He noted the Board of
Appeals could not waive the use of a material but must find a material that was equal to or better than the
current code requirements.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the intent was to make the Board of Appeals open to residents as
well as non - residents. Mr. Bowman recommended the lay person be a local resident. He noted if local
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 3
experts were not available, the City could seek persons outside the community with the technical
expertise to serve on the Board of Appeals. Councilmember Wilson recommended the participants on
the Board of Appeals be as broad as possible to avoid any conflict of interest. He recommended staff
work with the City Attorney on language to avoid any conflict of interest.
Councilmember Wilson commented his understanding of the Board of Appeals was it was not a tradeoff
on a cost basis as the standard must still be met. The issue was often a material that was not specified in
the UBC but would still provide the same level of life safety protection. Mr. Bowman agreed cost was
not the issue. The Board would be determining whether equal or better protection was provided via the
alternate method. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the standard was defined by the UBC or Uniform
Fire Code. Mr. Bowman reiterated the Board did not have the authority to waive UBC requirements.
Councilmember Wilson assured the Board could not reduce or put at risk public safety via their
decisions; their intent was to ensure alternate construction materials /methods were comparable or better
than what was required in the UBC. Mr. Bowman agreed.
Councilmember Dawson referred to the minutes of March 2002, where Mr. Bowman indicated in the
event of a conflict, that a board member would not participate in that issue. Mr. Bowman agreed that was
another reason for the alternate members. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the Board of Appeals
would have primary members and alternate members. Mr. Bowman explained that because the Board of
Appeals met so infrequently, board members as well as alternates should be selected to serve in the event
of a conflict of interest, unavailability of members, etc. He explained the Board of Appeals meet on
demand; there were no scheduled Board of Appeals meetings.
Councilmember Dawson commented the reason a regional Board of Appeals was considered was due to
the infrequency of the meetings. She asked why a regional board was not pursued. Mr. Bowman
answered it was due to workload; rather than continue to wait for the other jurisdiction to move forward,
staff decided to pursue the establishment of a Board of Appeals in Edmonds.
Councilmember Dawson asked if another jurisdiction that wanted to share the Board of Appeals could do
so via an Interlocal Agreement after the Board of Appeals was established. Mr. Bowman answered yes.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO REINSTITUTE THE FIVE
MEMBER BOARD OF APPEALS.
Council President Pro Tern Marin advised the Community Services/Development Services committee
considered the Board of Appeals and forwarded a recommendation for approval to the Council. He noted
this was a symbolic gesture to illustrate the City's efforts to assist with economic development to attract
development and revenue to the City.
Councilmember Wilson offered the following friendly amendments to Council President Pro Tern
Marin's motion: 1) because this dealt with issues related to life and safety, and concern had been
expressed regarding the potential for a conflict of interest, staff work with City Attorney Scott Snyder on
an adopted Code of Ethics to address any conflicts of interest, 2) the citizen member of the Board of
Appeals be from the community and other members could be from outside the community, 3) each
position have 2 -3 alternate members to ensure there were sufficient members, and 4) establish a five -year
sunset clause to allow the Council an opportunity to re- evaluate the efficacy of the Board of Appeals.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her support for the Board of Appeals, noting it was not just a
symbolic gesture but an effort to bring expertise to the evaluation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 4
Councilmember Petso advised she would vote against the motion as she found the conflict of interest
issue insurmountable. She referred to the comments that past interpretations have cost developers
money, noting this revealed the potential for a conflict of interest. She envisioned a group of architects,
contractors, and subcontractors who worked together on projects trying to decide issues for others in the
industry with whom they have worked in the past or would work with in the future. She preferred the
Hearing Examiner process as he was unaffected by the relationships between contractors and architects.
She noted another advantage of the Hearing Examiner was the Council's annual review of his
performance as well as the ability for issues regarding the Hearing Examiner's decisions to be brought to
the attention of the Mayor and Council.
Councilmember Orvis offered his support for the motion, noting it would allow more timely use of better
materials that were not yet included in the UBC but still meet the standards established in the UBC. He
was satisfied with the assurances Councilmember Wilson's amendments would provide regarding a
potential conflict of interest.
Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows:
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO REINSTITUTE THE FIVE MEMBER
BOARD OF APPEALS AND 1) ADOPT A CODE OF ETHICS TO CONSIDER CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST, 2) REQUIRE ONLY THE CITIZEN MEMBER LIVE WITHIN THE EDMONDS
CITY LIMITS, 3) HAVE ALTERNATES FOR THE BOARD, AND 4) ESTABLISH A FIVE YEAR
SUNSET CLAUSE AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AND COUNCIL PRESENTATION
DURING THE FIFTH YEAR.
MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED.
Citizens 5. CITIZENS COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS REPORT ON BARRIERS
Commission IN LOCAL ELECTIONS
on Salaries
of Elected
Officials Human Resources Director Brent Hunter recalled last year when the Citizens Commission on Salaries of
Elected Officials presented their recommendations regarding salaries, they heard comments from citizens
during their public hearing that led them to believe there were issues other than salaries that prevented
people from running for public office and the Council requested the Commission study this issue. He
noted the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials held several meetings during the past
year including a public hearing in December 2002.
Ellen Ernst, 702 7th Avenue S, Edmonds, introduced the members of the Citizens Commission on
Salaries of Elected Officials, James Braun, James Underhill, John Quast, Ralph Larson, Kevin Clarke
and William Brougher.
Ms. Ernst explained as part of the Commission's 2002 report to the Council, they recommended a special
review of barriers that may hinder citizens from running for political office. She recalled their
recommendation was based on information they received during public hearings and surveys they
conducted with current and former Councilmembers. Citizens, including former Councilmembers,
identified several barriers that may discourage citizens from seeking public office and may prevent
citizens from running for a second term including time away from family and job, campaign costs, and
public criticism. Ms. Ernst provided further detail regarding these barriers. With regard to costs, she
noted Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) requirements were onerous and the cost to run for Council
may be $7,000 - $8,000. With regard to time commitment, she advised the average was 20 -25
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 5
hours /week away from family and the job. With regard to public criticism, she referred to negative
comments and personal attacks.
Ms. Ernst enumerated issues raised at the December 2002 public hearing where 16 people provided
testimony: districting, Council workload, civility, getting involved, information on running for public
office, and public disclosure. She provided further detail regarding each issue.
With regard to districting, she explained districting was the establishment of seven districts within the
City from which Councilmembers would be elected; currently, Councilmembers are elected at large. She
explained the pros of districting included less cost for elections, more citizen involvement i.e. in
neighborhood issues, better connection with elected representatives. The cons of districting included loss
of citywide focus, creates a small fiefdom, doesn't ensure the best persons are elected, and more cost for
the City. The Commission's recommendation with regard to districting was that the Council appoint a
Blue Ribbon Committee to study districting, a committee comprised of former elected officials. She
remarked the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials was not qualified to study this issue
as it was very political and the Commission did not want to become political.
With regard to reducing the Council workload, issues discussed included the appearance that the Council
spent a great deal of time on land use appeals, avoiding micromanaging, providing executive summaries,
focusing on the long range, delegation to staff, and the Council making policy rather than interpreting it.
With regard to civility in meetings, comments at the public hearing and the discussion by the
Commission included the public's right to speak, concurrence with the three minute rule, civility extends
to both speakers and the Council, and enforcement of rules at meetings. The Commission's
recommendation was to read a civility code at all public meetings such as, "This meeting of the City
Council will be run in a civil and respectful manner. Each speaker shall respect his or her fellow citizens
by reporting, commenting, editorializing, and providing testimony in a civil tone without personally
attacking his or her audience."
With regard to getting involved, comments included that involved citizens run for elected office and
serve in other public roles and citizens need information on the opportunities to serve. The
Commission's recommendation was using the City's website, public access TV and other public areas to
provide information on citizen involvement opportunities and campaign information for public office.
The Commission also recommended providing links on the City's website to assist prospective office
seekers with information on how to get started with an election campaign.
Ms. Ernst summarized their recommendation was to minimize unnecessary workload, provide better
information to enhance the opportunity for better citizen involvement, improve civility in some public
meetings, and conduct an in -depth review of districting by a Blue Ribbon Committee.
Ms. Ernst read the Commission's summary in the report, noting the report was available at City Hall,
"Although the Citizens Commission recognizes that several of the aforementioned barriers, such as PDC
requirements and election costs are beyond the domain of the City, the Commission strongly believes the
community can take additional positive steps to encourage and prepare citizens who would like to serve
in a public office. Creating the right environment for all types of public office seekers, such as
minimizing unnecessary time encroachments on family and job along with injecting the proper respect
and civility received for their efforts, will allow the best qualified individuals to cultivate their personal
interests and commitment to serve their community. Providing the information resources and mentoring
assistance will not only assist the potential office seeker, but will also recruit more talented volunteers
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 6
for service on the City's Boards and Commissions and other opportunities in the community. The
Commission also believes, if the Council would define and function within their role as the City's policy
board rather than sometimes being viewed as micromanagi.ng, the lure of policy -level challenges may
also attract more highly qualified office seekers. Regarding the issue of districting, the Commission
found it to be the most divisive item discussed by the participants. The arguments made pro and con
were both convincing and speculative. The Commission feels this issue touched a nerve in the
community and deserves a much more thorough review before a final decision pro or con is reached.
Because of this sensitivity, the Commission believes this review should be done by a committee of past
elected officials who understand the political process."
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
thletic Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, board member of the Friends of Athletic Fields,
Fields referred to a letter from Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson requesting support for SB
5661, a bill proposing farmland not currently being farmed be used for athletic fields. He noted the bill
passed the Senate but was held up in the House. He urged the public to call their representative at 1 -800-
562 -6000 to ensure this bill was moved to the House.
Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, referred to a letter to the editor regarding Councilmember
Salaries Petso being on the short end of a vote. He recalled when the Council discussed salary increases for
department heads in September, Councilmember Petso suggested it be a budget issue; instead, the
Council approved substantial pay increases. He pointed out Administrative Services Director Peggy
Hetzler's starting salary was higher than her predecessor and her salary now was even higher. He
recommended her successor's salary be lower. Mr. Demeroutis expressed his appreciation for
Councilmember Petso's integrity and her willingness to take a stand on issues such as tonight's conflict
of interest with the Board of Appeals.
Public safety Rowena Miller, 18711 182 °d Place SW, Edmonds, described her poll of people regarding the proposed
Property Tax levy lid lift, noting her poll revealed a little of everything including people who were opposed to the levy
Levy Lid Lib lid lift because of things that should have been done in the past to save money. She commented that was
now in the past and the City must start from now. She noted the Council had no alternative other than to
place a levy lid lift on the ballot for the voters to decide. She noted the increase was only in the City's
portion of the property taxes, not the total property tax as property taxes also included taxes for the
school district, state, county, city, library, hospital and for some, the Port. She expressed her
appreciation for Ms. Hetzler's example regarding citizen's savings as a result of the reduction in vehicle
license fees. She summarized the Council had a big selling job to do on the levy lid lift but she felt the
levy lid lift was necessary as long as it was dedicated to public safety. She noted a property valued at
$450,000 would see a $242 annual increase, about $0.66 per day, less than most paid each day for coffee.
Development 7. CONTINUED DELIBERATION ON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES
Services
Department Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled on April 1, 2003, the Council held a public
Fees
hearing on the proposed Development Service Department fees. He explained recommendations were
presented to the Council at the public hearing and the matter was continued to allow the Council time to
review the proposed fees. He explained the premise for the increased fees was to recover the actual cost
of labor and benefits for each permit; overhead was not included in the calculations.
Mr. Bowman explained testimony at the public hearing raised two salient points, 1) there should be no
reconsideration charge of an appeal to the Hearing Examiner if the City Council was not available for an
appeal, and 2) the fees should not be automatically increased on an annual basis via an escalator clause
and should be reviewed annually. The revised proposal eliminates the escalator clause.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 7
Mr. Bowman explained the fundamental question was whether land use and development permits should
pay for the costs associated with their review or should the City subsidize those permits. If the City
should subsidize those permits, how much of a subsidy should be provided. He displayed the following
table regarding appeal fees.
Appeal Type
Current Fee
Estimated Actual
Cost
10% Subsidy
Appeal to the Hearing Examiner
$150
$2,274
$227
Appeal to the City Council
$300
$2,028
$203
Appeal of the Building Official's
Interpretation
$300
$2,045
$205
Appeal of a Civil Violation
$500
$2,417
$242
Hearing Examiner Reconsideration
No charge
$600
$60*
* Suggest no charge if appeal to City Council
Mr. Bowman advised the 10% subsidy was identified in discussions with Councilmember Wilson, but the
Council would select whatever subsidy it determined appropriate. He described each appeal type.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Bowman advised approximately $209,000 would be generated from
increased permit fees into the General Fund, funds that were to be used for the cost of administering
permits.
For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Bowman explained the Appeal of Civil Violation was a code violator.
He described the process involved with a code violation. He noted an Appeal of a Civil Violation
differed from the other appeals.
Councilmember Dawson noted although it may be appropriate to subsidize some appeals, an Appeal of a
Civil Violation has already exhausted several opportunities to address the situation. She did not favor
subsidizing the Appeal of a Civil Violation to the same level as other appeals.
Council President Pro Tern Marin indicated he was generally in favor of fees covering the cost of doing
the work, although he was somewhat concerned with the fee for ADU compliance.
Councilmember Dawson noted even for fees that would cover the cost of administering the permit,
overhead costs were not included. She noted without including overhead costs, the City was still
subsidizing permits somewhat. Mr. Bowman agreed the fees were based on labor costs, not overhead.
Councilmember Orvis noted if the fees collected were deducted from the cost of operating the
Development Services Department, there would still be an impact on the General Fund. Mr. Bowman
agreed, noting the Development Services Department provided services funded via the General Fund
such as comprehensive planning, code enforcement, public information, intergovernmental activities, etc.
He explained the Development Services Department had three major funding sources, the Combined
Utility Fund, permit fees, and the General Fund. He noted the Combined Utility Fund contributed funds
toward the Engineering Division for work on utility projects, permit fees were intended to cover the cost
of permit review, and the General Fund funded administration, code enforcement, comprehensive
planning, public information, and intergovernmental activities.
Councilmember Petso referred to the fee for grease interceptor and grease trap which were scheduled to
increase substantially under this proposal. Building Official Jeannine Graf answered these were one -time
permit fees when a restaurant was opened.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 8
Councilmember Wilson inquired about other cities in the Puget Sound region with regard to permit fees.
Mr. Bowman answered many cities were moving toward recovering costs via permit fees. He referred to
the fee comparison in the April 1 packet which illustrated many jurisdictions were utilizing hourly fees.
He advised the Master Builders Association did not favor the hourly rate method due to the uncertainty
of calculating the fee when budgeting the project.
Councilmember Wilson noted the Building Division was the only department with 100% cost recovery in
their fee structure. Mr. Bowman agreed, recalling that was due to a policy decision the Council made in
the 1980's. Councilmember Wilson noted there was no provision in the City's ordinances requiring the
funds generated via permit fees be returned to the department; they were currently collected by the
General Fund. He asked whether the proposal included allocating the revenues generated by the fees to
the Development Services Department. Mr. Bowman answered that was a separate budget discussion.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether most of the current permit fees were 80 -90% subsidized via the
General Fund. Mr. Bowman agreed the City's fees have traditionally been lower.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Bowman explained most jurisdictions considered appeals as the
citizen's right to access the Council. He pointed out the substantial estimated cost of appeals versus a
10% subsidy.
Councilmember Dawson favored a 10% subsidy for Appeals to the Hearing Examiner, Council, and of
the Building Official's Interpretation, and retaining the $500 fee for Appeal of a Civil Violation.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Dawson's suggestion, noting all permit fees were
subsidized to some extent as overhead costs were not included. He pointed out the importance of
citizens' right to appeal, expressing his support to continue a 10 -15% subsidy for appeals. With regard to
Appeal of Civil Violation, he preferred to retain the percentage methodology and suggested a 25%
subsidy. He recommended no charge for a request for reconsideration under any circumstances.
Councilmember Plunkett requested Mr. Bowman comment on the proposed appeal fees. Mr. Bowman
answered the subsidy was a Council policy decision. He recommended the public have access via the
appeal process, noting extraordinarily high fees may block the public's access. He found the higher fee
for Appeal of Civil Violation acceptable, noting that appeal was different from the other types of appeals.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 967
ADOPTING REVISED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES INCLUDING A 10%
SUBSIDY FOR APPEAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER, APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL,
AND APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION; A 25% SUBSIDY FOR
APPEAL OF CIVIL VIOLATION; AND NO CHARGE FOR HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING A POTENTIAL PUBLIC SAFETY PROPERTY TAX
Public Safety LEVY LID LIFT
Property Tax
Levy Lid lift In response to the public's request for additional information regarding the items to be funded via the
levy lid lift, Councilmember Dawson provided details regarding Police Department items that would be
funded via the levy lid lift:
• Two police officers — intended to be cut from the 2003 budget but funded for one year with the
anticipation of funding via a levy lid lift
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 9
• Crime Prevention Unit — an item proposed to be cut from the 2003 budget. Councilmember
Dawson explained the Crime Prevention Officer coordinated Blockwatch and Business Watch
programs, operated the volunteer program, organized National Night Out, made presentations to
the public and private groups regarding crime prevention such as burglary and auto theft, and
worked with individuals and neighborhoods to solve problems.
• Animal Control /Ordinance Officer — eliminated from the 2003 budget. Councilmember Dawson
explained the position would primarily do parking enforcement.
• School Resource Officer — a position likely to be eliminated if the levy lid lift was not approved.
Councilmember Dawson explained the School Resource Officer was a full -time position
assigned to Edmonds - Woodway High School. In addition to traditional police activity for crimes
that occurred on the high school campus, the officer was a counselor, taught occasional blocks of
instruction, and has authority to act under the Education Code. According to Chief Stern, the
goodwill established with the staff and students has been beneficial to the community.
• Administrative Support position — eliminated from the 2003 budget.
Councilmember Dawson noted the majority of the remaining Police Department items to be funded via
the levy lid lift were unfunded mandates for which a stable funding source was essential, items such as
prisoner care including an estimated increase in costs if the Snohomish County jail measure did not pass
in May, increases in SnoCom costs, additional retirement costs, radio technology costs, training costs,
costs associated with specialized evidence, and accreditation costs.
Councilmember Dawson provided details regarding Fire Department items that would be funded via the
levy lid lift:
• Training/Safety Officer — a swap for the Assistant Chief position eliminated in the 2003 budget
• Three Firefighter /EMT positions — scheduled for elimination in the 2003 budget but retained for
one year in anticipation of funding via a levy lid lift
• Restore Fire Inspector — scheduled to be eliminated in the 2003 budget but retained for one year
in anticipation of funding via a levy lid lift
• Add one additional Firefighter — this position would cover shifts and reduce overtime
• Restore an Administrative Support Assistant — this position was eliminated in the 2003 budget
• Train Firefighters to Paramedic levels
• Restore Reserves to paid status — the Reserves were reduced to unpaid status in the 2003 budget
Councilmember Dawson noted the remaining Fire Department items to be funded via the levy lid lift
were out of the City's control such as fleet maintenance, increased SnoCom fees, vehicle replacement
contribution, retirement cost increases, and technology costs. Councilmember Dawson emphasized these
were items that were necessary to maintain the current staffing level or costs that would be paid via some
source and a stable funding source was essential. She urged the public to contact her with any further
questions regarding the items to be funded via the levy lid lift.
Ms. Hetzler provided an updated financial forecast in response to a request from Councilmember Petso
regarding how much the initial levy lid lift amount could be reduced if the Council chose to attain a zero
cash balance at the end of five years. She recalled the amount of the levy lid lift discussed at the April 8
Council meeting was $1.75 million; in order to attain a zero cash balance at the end of five years, the
amount of the levy lid lift could be reduced by $50,000 to $1.7 million.
Councilmember Orvis advised his intent was that should the levy lid lift pass, public safety would be
taken off the "chopping block" for five years and not just the programs identified in the levy lid lift, but
all of public safety. To make that intent clear, he requested City Attorney Scott Snyder draft a resolution
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 10
for Council consideration that clarified funding for all public safety programs would be stabilized for five
years if the levy lid lift passed.
Councilmember Petso expressed her appreciation to Ms. Hetzler for rerunning the numbers. She
acknowledged the reduction was not a large number, but the Council needed to develop a proposal that
would be "somewhat bullet proof from cheap shots about asking for more than what we need or any other
kind of attack." She encouraged the Council to consider the $1.7 million levy lid lift rather than the
higher levy lid lift.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would make a decision regarding the levy lid lift at the April 22
Council meeting.
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF APRIL 8, 2003
Community
Services/ Community Services/Development Services Committee
Development
Services Council President Pro Tern Marin advised staff provided the Committee a presentation regarding the Six
Committee Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which identified the impact of the revenue lost as a result of I -776,
I -695, and I -747. He noted the presentation regarding the Six Year CIP would be provided to the Council
at the May 6 meeting.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
There were no Council reports.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
GAi HA ENSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 15, 2003
Page 11
�L
AGENDA
- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
April 15, 2003
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 April 8, 2003.
(C) Approval of claim checks #62005 through #62150 for the week of April 7, 2003,
in the amount of $153,629.27.
(D) Community Services Department Quarterly Report.
(E) Bond Capital Projects Update.
(F) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their liquor
licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(G) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code Chapter
7.50 Stormwater Management Utility to add a new Section 7.50.070
Stormwater Management System Development Charge in order to establish a
charge to recover the cost of establishing the stormwater management
system to new patrons.
3. (20 Min.) Recognition of Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler. A reception
will immediately follow the recognition.
4. (20 Min.) Public Hearing on Building Board of Appeals.
5. (30 Min.) Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials report on barriers in local
elections.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
April 15, 2003
Pacie 2 of 2
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. (60 Min.) Continued deliberation on Development Services Department fees.
8. (20 Min.) Continued discussion regarding a potential Public Safety Property Tax Levy Lid
Lift.
9. (10 Min.) Report on the City Council Committee Meetings of April 8, 2003.
10. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Min.) Council Comments
1
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.