Loading...
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.