Loading...
PB-Attachments_07-14-10.doc_reduced (2).pdf EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 6, 2009 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council th Chambers, 250 5 Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief D. J. Wilson, Council President Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Dave Orvis, Councilmember Development Director Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Strom Peterson, Councilmember Noel Miller, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Rob Chave, Planning Manager Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Carl Nelson, CIO Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Rob English, City Engineer Gina Coccia, Associate Planner Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Jennifer Machuga, Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Wilson requested the addition of a Council Work Session on the Fire District 1 Contract as Item 4A and also to postpone Item 11, City of Edmonds Website - City Council Web Pages, to a future meeting. He inquired whether Item 12, Discussion and Potential Action on Ordinance Amending the 2009 Budget, could be delayed to a future agenda. Interim Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained it was important to pass the ordinance amending the 2009 budget so it could be included in the final ordinance amending the 2009 budget. It was his understanding the amendments were codification of discussions that occurred this year; the only difference between the presentation to the Finance Committee and the agenda item was the elimination of the police buy-back and a decision regarding whether to include the Council contingency fund. He anticipated it would be a brief discussion. Council President Wilson agreed to retain Item 12 and Council consideration would be determined by the lateness of the hour when the Council reached that item. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED, ADDING A COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT AS ITEM 4A AND POSTPONING ITEM 11, CITY OF EDMONDS WEBSITE - CITY COUNCIL WEB PAGES, TO A FUTURE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2009 Page 1 Page 1 ATTACHMENT1 recalled Council President Wilson stating the Council followed the law with regard to information on Council web pages, and recommended the Council adopt standards with regard to content. He pointed out information on Channel 21 states Council President Wilson is the Chair of Community Transit; however, Council President Wilson actually resigned that position in August. He expressed concern the City no longer was represented on the Community Transit Board. Council President Wilson responded he had hoped that the website standards would be complete by now but other issues have taken priority. He acknowledged Mr. Martin had filed a public disclosure violation alleging Mayor Haakenson, Councilmember Peterson and he had broken the law; the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) found there had not been any wrongdoing. He found it necessary to resign from Community Transit due to the amount of time he devoted to the Levy Review Committee, Firdale Village zoning criteria and design standards, the I-1033 resolution and the FD1 contract. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds , commented the Council had apparently changed its rules and was responding to audience comment. He referred to Consent Agenda Item E, Authorization to call for bids for the BNSF Double Track Utilities Upgrade Project, and suggested the City require BNSF pay for the utility upgrade. He pointed out that project also included water mains at Brackett’s Landing North and James Street, noting those would benefit the Al Dykes project. With regard to Consent Agenda Item G, Report on bids opened on September 14, 2009 for the Odor Control Improvement Project, he advised the $800,000 project was increased to $1.4 million of which the City would pay approximately $800,000. He questioned the Finance Department’s recommendation to pay the $800,000 cost in cash rather than finance at the current low rates. He thanked Council President Wilson for releasing three attorney-client emails and requested the email between Mr. Snyder and Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman also be released. In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment about the Council responding to public comment, Mayor Haakenson advised there was no rule that Councilmembers or the Mayor could not respond to citizen requests/comments. In response to why he often did not respond to public comments, Mayor Haakenson commented he was accustomed to picking his battles. In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comments about the City paying for the utility upgrade due to BNSF’s double tracking, Councilmember Wambolt advised the City did not want to pay for the upgrade but was required to. 10. REPORT ON PETITIONS RECEIVED REGARDING THE "MEADOWDALE BEACH AREA" 10. REPORT ON PETITIONS RECEIVED REGARDING THE "MEADOWDALE BEACH AREA" 10. REPORT ON PETITIONS RECEIVED REGARDING THE "MEADOWDALE BEACH AREA" ANNEXATION. ANNEXATION. Associate Planner Gina Coccia explained the City received a request from residents outside the City Associate Planner Gina Coccia explained the City received a request from residents outside the City Associate Planner Gina Coccia explained the City received a request from residents outside the City Associate Planner Gina Coccia explained the City received a request from residents outside the City interested in annexing. The “Meadowdale Beach Area” Annexation refers to an area within Area” Annexation refers to an area within interested in annexing. The “Meadowdale Beachinterested in annexing. The “Meadowdale Beach interested in annexing. The “Meadowdale Beach unincorporated Snohomish County lying east of 68th Avenue West. She provided the following unincorporated Snohomish County lying east of 68tunincorporated Snohomish County lying east of 68th Avenue West. She provided the following h Avenue West. She provided the following unincorporated Snohomish County lying east of 68t unincorporated Snohomish County lying east of 68t information regarding the annexation area: information regarding the annexation area: •A “10%” petition to annex into the City of Edmonds was circulated in April and August of 2009. A “10%” petition to annex into the City of Edmonds was circulated in April and August of 2009. • A “10%” petition to annex into the City of Edm •48 lots in the area. 48 lots in the area. • •41 owners signed the petition. 41 owners signed the petition. • 41 owners signed the petition. •The area is approximately 18.5 acres in size (roughly 0.029 square miles). The area is approximately 18.5 acres in size (roughly 0.029 square miles). • The area is approximately 18.5 acres in size (roughly 0.029 square miles). •The total County assessed value (2009) for this area is approximately: $19,865,500. mately: $19,865,500. The total County assessed value (2009) for this area is approxi • The total County assessed value (2009) for this area is approxi •The average assessed value is $413,864. The average assessed value is $413,864. • The average assessed value is $413,864. •For a “10% Annexation Petition” to go before Council, owners making up at least 10% of the For a “10% Annexation Petition” to go before Council, owners making up at least 10% of the • For a “10% Annexation Petition” to go before Council, owners making up at least 10% of the total assessed value of this area need to sign a petition (10% is $1,986,550). is $1,986,550). total assessed value of this area need to sign a petition (10% to sign a petition (10% •Owners making up $17,313,300 or 87% signed the petition. Owners making up $17,313,300 or 87% signed the petition. • Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2009 October 6, 2009 Page 16 Page 16 ATTACHMENT1 •The lots are developed with single-family homes built in the 1960s-1970s. The lots are developed with single-family homes built in the 1960s-1970s. • The lots are developed with singleThe lots are developed with single-family homes built in the 1960s-1970s. -family homes built in the 1960s-1970s. •The average parcel size is .38 acre (16,000 square feet). Most lots are .29 acres (about 12,600 The average parcel size is .38 acre (16,000 square feet). Most lots are .29 acres (about 12,600 The average parcel size is .38 acre (16,000 square feet). Most lots are .29 acres (about 12,600 • The average parcel size is .38 acre (16,000 square feet). Most lots are .29 acres (about 12,600 square feet). square feet). square feet). •There are 48 single-family lots (approximately 2.3 people per family = approximately 110 There are 48 single-family lots (approximately 2.3 people per family = approximately 110 • There are 48 single-family lots (approximately people). people). Per RCW 35A.14.120 the City Council needs to meet with the petitioners tonight to determine three Per RCW 35A.14.120 the City Council needs to meet Per RCW 35A.14.120 the City Council needs to meetPer RCW 35A.14.120 the City Council needs to meet with the petitioners tonight to determine three Per RCW 35A.14.120 the City Council needs to meet things: things: things: 1.Whether the Council will accept the proposed annexation. The boundary is logical as it is a t the proposed annexation Whether the Council will accep. The boundary is logical as it is a 1. Whether the Council will accept the proposed annexation. The boundary is logical as it is a residential neighborhood adjacent to Lynnwood to the south and County Parks to the north and residential neighborhood adjacent County Parks to the north and to Lynnwood to the south and residential neighborhood adjacent to Lynnwood to the south and east. Staff sees no reason to adjust the proposed boundary. east. Staff sees no reason to adjust the proposed boundary. east. Staff sees no reason to adjust the proposed boundary. 2.Whether the Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for Whether the Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for 2. Whether the Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. The County’s zoning is R-9600 and Lynnwood’s zoning is R- the proposed area to be annexed. The County’s zoning is R-9600 and Lynnwood’s zoning is R- the proposed area to be annexed. The County’s zoning is R-9600 and Lynnwood’s zoning is R- 8400. Most parcels are .29 acres. Staff feels establishing zoning as RS-8 (8000) would be the 8400. Most parcels are .29 acres. Staff feels establishing zoning as RS-8 (8000) would be the 8400. Most parcels are .29 acres. Staff feels establishing zoning as RS-8 (8000) would be the best fit and most consistent with the neighborhood. best fit and most consistent with the neighborhood. best fit and most consistent with the neighborhood. 3.Whether the Council will require assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be Whether the Council will require assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be 3. Whether the Council will require assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. Staff sees no reason why the Council would not require this area to assume their annexednot require this area to assume their . Staff sees no reason why the Council would . Staff sees no reason why the Council would portion of City indebtedness portion of City indebtedness Staff recommends the Council, 1) accept the proposed annexation, 2) require the simultaneous adoption Staff recommends the Council, 1) accept the proposed annexation, 2) require the simultaneous adoption Staff recommends the Council, 1) accept the proposed annexation, 2) require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed, and 3) require the assumption of of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed, and 3) require the assumption of of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. Ms. Coccia reviewed next steps in the annexation process: Ms. Coccia reviewed next steps in the annexation process: Ms. Coccia reviewed next steps in the annexation process: Ms. Coccia reviewed next steps in the annexation process: •Move forward with a “60% petition”- staff drafts a new petition containing all required elements. Move forward with a “60% petition”- staff drafts a new petition containing all required elements. • Move forward with a “60% petition”- staff drafts •Signatures collected totaling at least 60% value. Signatures collected totaling at least 60% value. • Signatures collected totaling at least 60% value. •Signatures certified by the County Assessor within 180 days of collection. Signatures certified by the County Assessor within 180 days of collection. • Signatures certified by the County Assessor within 180 days of collection. •Council reviews the new 60% petition and decides if they will accept it. Meanwhile, potential Council reviews the new 60% petition and decides if they will accept it. Meanwhile, potential • Council reviews the new 60% petition and decides if they will accept it. Meanwhile, potential zoning will be analyzed. zoning will be analyzed. zoning will be analyzed. •If accepted by Council, staff submits application to the Boundary Review Board (BRB) for tion to the Boundary Review Board (BRB) for If accepted by Council, staff submits applica • If accepted by Council, staff submits applica decision. decision. •If approved by the BRB, Council will finalize an ordinance. If approved by the BRB, Council will finalize an ordinance. • Mayor Haakenson advised former Development Services Director Duane Bowman began this process Mayor Haakenson advised former Development Serv ices Director Duane Bowman began this process Mayor Haakenson advised former Development Services Director Duane Bowman began this process with the residents quite some time ago and at least one neighborhood meeting has been held. with the residents quite some time ago and atwith the residents quite some time ago and at least one neighborhood meeting has been held. Councilmember Plunkett asked why Lynnwood or Mukilteo had not pursued annexation of this area. Councilmember Plunkett asked why Lynnwood or Mukilte o had not pursued annexation of this area. Councilmember Plunkett asked why Lynnwood or Mukilteo had not pursued annexation of this area. Mayor Haakenson advised Lynnwood’s Planner came to the neighborhood meeting and accepted the Mayor Haakenson advised Lynnwood’s Planner came to the neighborhood meeting and accepted the Mayor Haakenson advised Lynnwood’s Planner came to the neighborhood meeting and accepted the residents’ desire to annex to Edmonds. Mukilteo is not adjacent to the area. residents’ desire to annex to Edmonds. Mukilteo is not adjacent to the area. Councilmember Orvis commented although it appeared the density was being increased via the proposed Councilmember Orvis commented although it appeared the density was being increased via the proposed Councilmember Orvis commented although it appeared the density was being increased via the proposed zoning, in Snohomish County a duplex could be constructed on a lot and a half. Ms. Coccia advised the ucted on a lot and a half. Ms. Coccia advised the zoning, in Snohomish County a duplex could be constr zoning, in Snohomish County a duplex could be constr zoning, in Snohomish County a duplex could be constr zoning, in Snohomish County a duplex could be constr zoning would be analyzed further in the next steps. Mr. Snyder pointed out the Council was initiating the zoning would be analyzed further in the next steps. Mr. Snyder pointed out the Council was initiating the zoning would be analyzed further in the next steps. Mr. Snyder pointed out the Council was initiating the zoning process that would occur simultaneously with the circulation of the petition. zoning process that would occur simultaneously with the circulation of the petition. Councilmember Wambolt asked if there were any known upgrades that would be necessary in this area. Councilmember Wambolt asked if there were any know n upgrades that would be necessary in this area. Councilmember Wambolt asked if there were any know n upgrades that would be necessary in this area. Planning Manager Rob Chave answered there are service agreements in place for police and fire in this Planning Manager Rob Chave answered there are service agreements in place for police and fire in this Planning Manager Rob Chave answered there are service agreements in place for police and fire in this area and residents would see no change in those services. The homes in the area currently have septic area and residents would see no change in those services. The homes in the area currently have septic area and residents would see no change in those services. The homes in the area currently have septic systems and Public Works will be working with them on an LID to connect to sewer service. systems and Public Works will be working with th em on an LID to connect to sewer service. systems and Public Works will be working with th Councilmember Wambolt observed the City would not be incurring a large expense for improvements. Councilmember Wambolt observed the City would not be incurring a large expense for improvements. Mr. Chave agreed. Mr. Chave agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2009 October 6, 2009 Page 17 Page 17 ATTACHMENT1 Mayor Haakenson invited residents of the area to speak regarding annexation. Mayor Haakenson invited residents of the area to speak regarding annexation. Lewis Soraich , a resident of the area to be annexed, thanked Lynn and Mike Treseler for initiating the Lewis Soraich, a resident of the area to be annexed, thanked Lynn and Mike Treseler for initiating the , a resident of the area to be annexed, th anked Lynn and Mike Treseler for initiating the process of gathering signatures. He recalled 92% of the residents in the area supported annexation into process of gathering signatures. He recalled 92% of process of gathering signatures. He recalled 92% of the residents in the area supported annexation into process of gathering signatures. He recalled 92% ofprocess of gathering signatures. He recalled 92% of the residents in the area supported annexation into Edmonds. He asked how many more times petitions would need to be circulated. Mr. Snyder answered Edmonds. He asked how many more times petitions woul d need to be circulated. Mr. Snyder answered Edmonds. He asked how many more times petitions woul d need to be circulated. Mr. Snyder answered this was the last time. The first petition required only 10%; the second petition must contain information this was the last time. The first petition required only 10%; the second petition must contain information this was the last time. The first petition require d only 10%; the second petition must contain information regarding the simultaneous adoption of zoning and assumption of all bonded indebtedness. regarding the simultaneous adoption of zoning and assumption of all bonded indebtedness. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND, A) DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE THE TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND, A) DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE THE AND, A) DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE THE PROCESS FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS ADOPTION OF RS-8 ZONING OR SUCH OTHER PROCESS FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS ADOPTION OF RS-8 ZONING OR SUCH OTHER ZONING CATEGORY AS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING CATEGORY AS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AS NEAR TO THE CURRENT SNOHOMISH COUNTY ZONING AS PRACTICABLE; AND AS NEAR TO THE CURRENT SNOHOMISH COUNTY ZONING AS PRACTICABLE; AS PRACTICABLE; AND B) PROVIDE FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF ALL OF THE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF AND B) PROVIDE FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF ALL OF THE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF AND B) PROVIDE FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF THE CITY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE CITY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. CITY OF EDMONDS WEBSITE - CITY COUNCIL WEB PAGES. This item was removed from the agenda by motion on Agenda Item 1. 12. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 BUDGET. Mayor Haakenson asked Interim Finance Director Lorenzo Hines to address Ms. Buckshnis’ request that the Council not approve the ordinance amending the 2009 budget. Mr. Hines responded he met with Ms. Buckshnis within days of her raising the issue regarding the “missing” $2.2 million. He described to her the role of the annual financial statement versus the role of the current forecast, the City’s cashflow statement. At the end of the meeting he asked her three times if he had answered her questions and she responded he had. That evening he received an email with more questions to which he had not had an opportunity to respond. He referred to Ms. Buckshnis’ original email that questioned the $5.188 million less the emergency reserve that leaves $3.3 million which she felt should be the beginning balance reflected on the current forecast. He explained the $5.188 million was fund balance that was part of the income statement and balance sheet in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The formula is assets = liabilities + equity. The $5.2 million is equity; it is the overage of assets over liabilities as of December 31, 2008. That $5.2 million consists of five reserves in the General Ledger. In the private sector that is shareholders equity or owners’ equity but in government it is fund balance. Ms. Buckshnis is attempting to reconcile the $5.2 million to the beginning balance in the current forecast of $977,000. The difference is the $5.2 million is the fund balance per the CAFR, the $977,000 is working capital; cash minus current liabilities. The working capital figure was estimated by former Finance Director Junglov in August 2008 and was included in the 2009 budget. As 2009 progressed, the $977,000 figure was revised in the outlook column to $1.341 million. Budget amendments must begin with the $977,000 figure because that was the number included in the budget. He will be refining the $1.341 million figure to determine the final beginning working capital. He summarized $5.188 million is fund balance per the balance sheet in the CAFR versus working capital of $977,000. It is a comparison of equity to a subset of assets and they will never match. Council President Wilson asked whether the audit determined the December 31, 2008 number. Mr. Hines responded the City’s financial statements are on an accrual basis. When the books are closed as of December 31, accounts receivable and payable are estimated. As amounts are paid and received the working capital for January 1 is adjusted. Council President Wilson recalled the ending balance has usually been established by April. Mr. Hines answered this is the first budget amendment; had a prior Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2009 Page 18 ATTACHMENT1 Unincorporated Snohomish County City of Lynnwood City of Edmonds \] Exhibit B Meadowdale Beach Area Annexation File Number AMD20090002 0100200300400500Feet 68th Ave W / 158th - 161st St SW ATTACHMENT2 ATTACHMENT3 ATTACHMENT4 ATTACHMENT4 51 30.31E.050 See SCC Max. Lot Coverage 35% 35% 35% 30% 40% 5 ATTACHMENT 30.51A & chapters Hazards Seismic 30.62B SCC See 30.32A.110 See SCC Forest Resource Lands 30.32B.130 See SCC Ag Ruralzones 252525 555 Side and Rear Lot Lines Adjacent to: Residential 28, 53 Minimum Setback Requirements From (feet) OtherUrbanzones 10 5 5 10155 1015 555 9,6008,400 & R- 10 20 10 10 Table 30.23.030(2) R- 20252025 555 BULK MATRIX & Industrial Commercial zones 10 15 10 10 10101010151015 EasementFront Lot 34, 42, Public or Private Line 15 15 15 1515152020202020 or 60 Building Height 59 Determination Limits for Setback 20—3020—30 20 20 20 >20>30>30 NANANA ЌЉ͵ЋЌ 27 Height Bldg. Max. /ŷğƦƷĻƩ 303030354545 54 Lot Dimension (feet) Width Min. Lot 7065606060 /ƚķĻͲ 30.31E.050 (sq. See SCC Min. Lot 232323 4 29 9,6008,4007,2007,2007,200 Area ft.) /ƚǒƓƷǤ 15 R-9,600R-8,400R-7,200 LDMR 15 Zone MR {Ɠƚŷƚƒźƭŷ T Residential Urban