Loading...
03/17/2009 City CouncilMarch 17, 2009 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding pending litigation and negotiation of purchase of real estate, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:23 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Stroh Peterson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Grace Guenther, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief Al Compaan, Police Chief Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Debi Humane, Human Resources Director Rob English, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Haakenson relayed staff's request to reschedule Consent Agenda Item L (Ordinance Amending Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 17.60, Property Performance Standards) on next week's agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Orvis requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Bernheim requested Item K be removed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 3, 2009. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 1 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #110227 THROUGH #110369 FOR MARCH 5, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $867,076.71, AND #110370 THROUGH #110511 FOR MARCH 12, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $209,708.69. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #47884 THROUGH #47911 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 16 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2009 FOR $852,645.42. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM VERIZON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). F. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER (SCSC) KITCHEN UPGRADES PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. G. APPROVE FIRE DEPARTMENT 2007 -2008 WORK PLAN FINAL REPORT. H. APPROVE 2009 -2010 FIRE DEPARTMENT WORK PLAN. I. POLICE SURPLUS PROPERTY. J. 2009 ADDENDUM TO PRISONER DETENTION AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF LYNNWOOD. ITEM E: REJECTION OF ALL BIDS FOR THE 76TH AVENUE WEST /75TH PLACE WEST WALKWAY AND 162ND STREET PROJECT. Councilmember Orvis asked how long the rebid would take and when the project would begin. City Engineer Rob English responded the plan was to readvertise by the end of the month, begin the project by June 2009 and complete the project November 2009. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM K: ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.70 TEMPORARY USES AND TEMPORARY BUILDINGS. Councilmember Bernheim suggested the ordinance be returned to the Community Services /Development Services Committee to allow questions to be answered and community concerns addressed. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO REFER THE ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.70, TEMPORARY USES AND TEMPORARY BUILDINGS TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES /DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. EDMONDS BUSINESS STORY: DAVID ISRAEL OF "DREAM SWEETS." Council President Wilson commented one of the tasks before the Council was to remind citizens that one of the ways to ensure lower property taxes was to shop in Edmonds. Toward that end, the Council is inviting Edmonds businesses to tell their story to the Council and the public. David Israel, Dream Sweets, provided samples of his chocolates to the Council and the audience. He described his interest in cooking and baking since he was a child and his career in human resources, specifically salary administration. After taking a truffle making class in the late 1990s, he began making truffles for holidays and for occasions at work. In 2003 he left his position and worked as a pastry cook at the Essential Baking Company. Upon returning to a full -time position in compensation, he investigated renting a commercial kitchen to prepare truffles. He purchased a condominium in Edmonds and made Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 2 arrangements to rent the Olive's Cafe kitchen. He provided samples to Nama's Candy Store in Edmonds and in the first month they have placed three orders of 200 pieces. He currently offers four truffle flavors through Nama's Candy Store and is working on a sea salt caramel and intends to add other familiar and novel flavors. His short term goals are to develop marketing materials, a website, continue to take classes and work on production. 4. UPDATE ON CITIZEN LEVY REVIEW COMMITTEE. Mayor Haakenson explained the Council- approved 2009 -2010 budget projected an ending cash balance of $1.3 million for December 31, 2009. Sales tax revenues have declined faster than was anticipated during budget deliberations which necessitated revisions to the forecast models. The latest model now projects an ending cash balance of only $250,000 for year end, a decline of over $1 million since the budget was approved. The projections for 2010 show a $700,000 deficit, the lowest projected ending cash balance in the ten years since he has been mayor, which is not acceptable. There are no positive trends indicating a turnaround and upcoming revisions may reduce revenues further. Although there is hope the voters will approve a levy this November to restore revenue streams, the City cannot allow its ending cash balance to drop near zero. If the City waits until the outcome of the levy in November, there is the risk of additional decreases in revenue, but coupled with a levy failure, it would decimate City services. Taking action now is the prudent course in this environment and last Friday he announced the following program cuts affecting the 2009 and 2010 budget: • The DARE Program will be discontinued in fall 2009. • The contract with Mountlake Terrace for animal control services will not be renewed. This will also reduce parking enforcement in the City. • The balance of the Crime Prevention and Police Reserve programs will be eliminated. • To save overtime costs, the Police and Fire Departments will not participate in Edmonds Night Out in 2009. • Approximately $33,000 in Economic Development advertising funds have been frozen. • The City will not fund the South County Senior Center in 2010. The City will honor its commitment to provide $60,000 in 2009. • Yost Pool will not open this summer and the 33 part -time employees to work at the pool will not be hired. Mayor Haakenson noted although the pool was near and dear to many, it was projected to lose over $80,000 this year and the City cannot afford to fund a money -loser in these economic times. • No seasonal staff will be hired in the Parks Maintenance Department. Existing staff will do their best to keep up but citizens should expect parks will not be up to the standards to which they are accustomed. Garbage pickup and restroom cleaning and parks will be more sporadic. • The flower program will continue in 2009 but will not be paid for from the General Fund. The donation fund will be used to pay for the balance of the year. Because additional seasonal staff will not be hired, the maintenance will be reduced to allow it to be handled by existing staff. • Council President Wilson has been asked to freeze the Council contingency fund in the amount of $25,000. Mayor Haakenson explained the goal of these reductions was to build the ending cash balance for 2009 up to a reasonable level. The savings from these program reductions is approximately $300,000 which will increase projected ending cash in 2009 to over $500,000. These savings still leave the City in the red for 2010. He planned to announce further reductions in the next week in the form of possible layoffs, furloughs, temporary pay decreases or unfilled positions. He has several meetings scheduled with labor leaders and would not have anything further to announce until after those meetings were held. He acknowledged the Council may not agree with some or any of these cuts and that the Council may have different solutions but he hoped the Council would see the need and the bigger picture. He was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 3 convinced these cuts needed to be made now and stood by them as the right and prudent thing to do. He was hopeful the cuts would only be necessary for 2009 and that the City would weather the storm. He recognized these were very difficult times and that no one wanted to eliminate programs or jobs; however, the focus during these times must be on services that were necessary for residents, not what was nice to have. Council President Wilson explained the Council, the legislative branch of the City government, had appropriation authority and passed a budget that placed limits on the amount each department could spend. However, the administration of the budget was done by the executive branch, and as the head of the executive branch, it was the Mayor's responsibility to implement the policies the Council established in the budget. If there is no money or circumstances exist beyond what was envisioned in the budgeting process, the Mayor as the executive has full authority to make cuts such as he proposed, unless or until the Council directly says otherwise. If the Council were, for example, to direct Mayor Haakenson to fully fund Yost Pool, in his opinion it would be necessary for the Council to make offsetting cuts elsewhere. He recalled the budget the Council approved had a $300,000 surplus in 2009; however, it will now have a $1.1 million deficit in 2009. Council President Wilson announced next Tuesday the Council would take public comment specifically on these programmatic cuts even though Mayor Haakenson anticipates announcing additional cuts. He also planned to present a resolution for the Council to affirm the program cuts. Councilmember Plunkett asked for the dollar amounts for each of the proposed cuts. Mayor Haakenson . offered to email that information to the Council tomorrow morning. Councilmember Plunkett asked the timeframe for the proposed cuts unless the Council directed otherwise. Mayor Haakenson responded the cuts become effective for employees 30 days after they are announced to the unions; he planned to notify the unions on Friday. Councilmember Plunkett commented it had been suggested the Council would discuss the cuts next Tuesday; however, it appeared these cuts may be put into place before then. Mayor Haakenson advised the Chief announced the elimination of the DARE program to staff and the schools have been notified. Mountlake Terrace has been notified the animal control contract will not be renewed. Elimination of the balance of the Crime Prevention and Reserve programs is internal. The Police Foundation has been informed the Police and Fire Departments will not be participating. The economic development advertising simply will not be spent. He informed the Senior Center Director that funding would not be provided in 2010. If the Council wanted to open Yost Pool, that decision would need to be made soon to allow hiring of part-time staff. No seasonable park staff have been hired. The flower program is an internal transfer of funds and does not require any notification. The Council contingency fund is within the Council's control. He summarized there was not a great deal of notification with regard to the proposed program cuts. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mayor Haakenson explained once he has met with the unions on Friday, the result may be different than his proposal. His original intent was to have a decision Friday afternoon but he may not make an announcement until Monday with regard to further cuts. He planned to meet with the unions first and if they reach an agreement, meet with directors and employees and then notify the public. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the decision to layoff employees is an entreprenial decision of the Mayor; the negotiation with the union is in regard to impacts on the remaining workforce, issues such as bargaining unit work remaining within the unit, impact on remaining members' hours, etc. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Mayor could make the decision to layoff and the Council could disagree. Mr. Snyder answered the decision to hire and fire was the Mayor's. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council had any recourse if they disagreed with the Mayor's decision to furlough employees. Mr. Snyder answered no. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 4 Council President Wilson asked whether contracts would need to be reopened. Mr. Snyder answered no, the only reason the contracts would need to be reopened was to change a contract term. The decision to fill an open position, terminate or layoff an employee resides with the Mayor. Mayor Haakenson explained the bumping process (a more senior person taking over a less senior person's job and the less senior person may be laid off) would begin as soon as the unions were notified and would end 30 days later. Councilmember Plunkett observed the budget hole was $1 million and $300,000 was in program cuts and $600,000 in union contracts and the Council only had a say in the $300,000 in cuts. Mr. Snyder responded the Council could request the Mayor reassign his priorities or make cuts other places in lieu of the cuts the Mayor suggested in an effort to encourage him to retain a program or employee. Councilmember Bernheim expressed his opinion regarding how he would like to have the labor issue resolved in this period when the City does not have enough money to finance labor contracts, a period that may extend 3 -4 years. A few weeks ago, the Council approved a 5.8% cost of living increase for non -union employees which totaled approximately $230,000. He suggested if that increase were reconsidered, it could offset $230,000 in cuts and fund 1 -3 positions. He recalled there was also a 1% increase in the firefighters' contract for fulfilling physical education requirements, another opportunity for funds to offset cuts. He recalled there was also $600,000 in overtime in the Fire Department budget. He questioned whether the contracts could be renegotiated to save everyone's jobs rather than some being fired and the remaining employees burdened further. Mayor Haakenson reiterated he would be announcing further reductions in the form of possible layoffs, furloughs, temporary pay decreases or unfilled positions. He expressed frustration with comments that the Council approved a pay increase for non - represented employees (45 out of 260), pointing out the Council also approved pay increases for the other 215 employees; $305,000 for police, $334,000 for fire, $144,000 for SEIU, $218,000 for Teamsters, $32,000 for police support and $230,000 for non - represented employees, a total of $1.3 million. He urged the Council to keep the bigger picture in mind. Mr. Snyder explained the majority of non - represented employees were at -will employees; therefore, the Council could amend the annual salary ordinance and take away the increases for future months. The I% in the fire contract was part of a valid labor agreement; the Council's option would be via the Mayor or by reducing the Fire Department budget to force layoffs within the department. The City's ability is to lay off employees; as Mayor Haakenson explained, this requires giving notice to the unions to allow a reasonable opportunity to request impact bargaining. In impact bargaining the union could propose or agree to other solutions such as salary reductions or elimination of the 1% but is not obligated to do so and it is very rare. With regard to overtime, that is under management control and he suggested asking for a report from the Fire Chief, noting much of the overtime is related to minimum manning for the Fire Department, illnesses, disability leave, etc. and was not always discretionary. Councilmember Bernheim commented his position in these extreme circumstances was to ask the unions to collaborate and cooperate to avoid people getting fired. His hope was to keep everyone on the payroll and ask everyone to sacrifice a little rather than placing the burden on employees at the bottom. Council President Wilson commented in his experience at the bargaining table and as an officer in his union, Federation of Teachers, he doubted the union would be receptive to management asking for a 10% cut before any program cuts were made. These programmatic cuts needed to be made before management could have a dialogue with staff. He commended Mayor Haakenson on the solid job he was doing, reiterating that the announcement regarding program cuts needed to be made before Mayor Haakenson met with the unions this Friday. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 5 Council President Wilson provided an update on the Citizen Levy Review Committee, advising the Council had been provided a list of citizens selected to serve on the Committee. The purpose of the Committee will be to learn about the state of the budget in significant detail, to reflect on the City's revenue and spending priorities and vet the proposal discussed at the Council's February retreat that had been the subject of an internal City work group since then. The Committee will culminate on April 21 and a series of presentations will be made to the Council by the small groups in the Committee in an effort to foster a broader conversation among the public. He explained the current levy proposal is approximately $4.5 million in new property taxes or approximately $22 /month for the average Edmonds homeowner. Those funds will be used to fully fund Yost Pool, keep neighborhood parks open, buy replacement fire hoses, fund the DARE program and fund other items in the City. The Committee will hold its first meeting on Monday, March 23 and there will be over 50 citizens participating. Council President Wilson disputed rumors that this Committee was dead, that only certain citizens were selected to participate or that the levy was not moving forward, assuring the Committee will meet each of the next four Mondays in the Brackett Room of City Hall beginning at 6:00 p.m. He encouraged citizens not on the Committee to attend as they were open public meetings. He reviewed the criteria for selection to the Committee, 1) live in Edmonds, 2) fill out an application, 3) meet the March 12 deadline, 4) be able to attend all four meetings, and 5) be breathing, emphasizing there was no selection process other than this. Following the Committee's process, there will be public open houses, public hearings and the Council will accept public comment throughout the year. It is his intent to make this the most open, transparent and engaging process any city in Snohomish County has ever seen; the Committee is the first step. To those who question whether the levy is moving forward or whether the Council has the will to provide the necessary leadership in difficult economic times, Council President Wilson highlighted the Council's 7 -0 vote in October 2008 to form a revenue work group to consider all options; the Council's 7 -0 vote in November 2008 to add a budget note that there would be a public vote in the fall; and the Council's 7 -0 vote in February 2009 to affirm a timeline that identified the Citizen Committee, open houses, public hearings and a vote of the public in November 2009. He assured the Council and the City were committed to making the best case to the voters that maintaining current services required a vote of the public to increase property taxes by approximately $22/inonth. He advised the list of Committee members was available for public review and would be posted on the City's website soon. He recognized Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman for her assistance with the Committee. Councilmember Bernheim suggested applicants who applied after the deadline be allowed to join the Committee, noting several were highly experienced in this area. Council President Wilson acknowledged that would be possible if the Council wished, noting each department was preparing materials that would be provided to Committee members. He had invited two applicants who applied after the deadline to participate as observers. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PARTICIPATE AND SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS AFTER THE DEADLINE BEFORE THE FIRST MEETING BE PERMITTED TO JOIN THE COMMITTEE. Council President Wilson confirmed Councilmember Bernheim's intent was to allow anyone to join the Committee until the start of the first meeting at 6:00 p.m. Monday, March 23. He invited other Councilmembers to participate in preparing for and attending the Committee meetings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 6 Councilmember Bernheim recalled he submitted his application to the Group of 33 eight hours after the deadline and was not invited to participate. He favored including anyone who was interested on the Committee. Councilmember Wambolt commented deadlines should be adhered to unless there were extenuating reasons. He pointed out the Committee had been advertised for three weeks and there were already 53 members, an adequate representation from the community. He did not support accepting any additional applications. Councilmember Plunkett commented additional applicants should be welcomed and was in the spirit of openness and transparency. In view of the Council's support for accepting additional members, Council President Wilson advised he would support the motion. He noted Councilmember Wambolt and he had been meeting as the revenue work groups since November and encouraged other Councilmembers to participate in this process. Councilmember Wambolt asked how long applications would be accepted. Council President Wilson clarified the motion was to accept any application until 6:00 p.m. on Monday, March 23. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson advised the Committee meetings would be advertised as special meetings in the event four or more Councilmembers attended. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PERMIT TYPES, PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, CONSISTENCY WITH SEPA OPEN RECORD HEARING PROCEDURES CLOSED RECORD APPEALS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled the Council had a work session on these amendments on February 24 and had been provided additional information prior to tonight at their request. The objectives of the rewrite are to, 1) provide clear standards for permit processing, 2) reduce potential liability, and 3) address Hearing Examiner procedural concerns. He identified the major proposed changes: • Establishing permit types. • Creating tables that identify the different permit types and decision - making processes. • Submission requirements and procedures. • Change the public notice requirements to establish the responsibility for the permit applicant to provide the notice. • Establishing SEPA consistency regulations. • Establishing open and closed record hearing procedures. • Creating a new section regarding Development Agreements. With regard to the format, Title 20 will be reformatted to replace the process and procedures section at the start of the chapter with a subsection for specific permit review criteria. The process and procedures section will have the following seven subsections: • Chapter 20.01 — Types of development project permit types • Chapter 20.02 — Type I -IV development project permit applications • Chapter 20.03 — Public notice requirements • Chapter 20.04 — Consistency with development regulations and SEPA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 7 • Chapter 20.06 —Open record public hearings • Chapter 20.07 — Closed record appeals • Chapter 20.08 — Development Agreements He reviewed the table in Chapter 20.01 establishing the type for various permits and a second table in Chapter 20.01 that identified the decision process for all permit applications that addressed recommendation, final decision, notice of application, open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision, closed record review and judicial appeal. Mr. Bowman reviewed the public notice requirement in Chapter 20.03, explaining the biggest change in this section was the requirement for the applicant/appellant to provide all public notice. Staff will prepare the notice and give it to the permit applicant/appellant to post and mail. Affidavits for posting and mailing are required prior to any public hearing. Failure to provide proper notice will result in beginning the process again. Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.04 requires consistency with development regulations and SEPA. This chapter formalized what staff already does in preparing staff reports and adds planned actions which are not currently addressed in the code. Chapter 20.06, open record public hearings, establishes clear procedures for conducting open record hearings, addresses the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner regarding the processing of reconsideration requests, and establishes the burden of proof. Chapter 20.07, closed record appeals, establishes procedures for closed record appeals, establishes consolidated appeals process, and establishes standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.08, development agreements, is a new section that addresses development agreements, establishes the processing procedures, and establishes an appeal process. Councilmember Plunkett asked for an approximation of how many permit types the proposed changes would remove the City Council from considering in a quasi judicial hearing. Mr. Bowman estimated 5 -6 and offered to identify specifically which ones. Councilmember Bernheim recalled he requested a transition table. Mr. Bowman answered that was sent to the Council on March 6. He provided a comparison of the proposed amendment to the existing code: • Types of project permit applications — proposed Chapter 20.01, compared to staff review in 20.95 and 21.00 under Hearing Examiner, Planning Board and City Council review. • Development project permit applications — proposed Chapter 20.02, compared to 20.95 Application and Review • Public Notice — proposed Chapter 20.03, compared to Chapter 20.91 Public hearings and Notice • Consistency with development regulations and SEPA; new, therefore there is no comparison • Open record public hearings — proposed Chapter 20.06, compared to 21.00 Hearing Examiner, Planning Board and City Council review • Closed record appeals proposed Chapter 20.07, compared to 21.05 Appeals and Court Review • Development Agreements 20.08, new, therefore no comparison. Mr. Snyder pointed out this was a complete rewrite /restructure, therefore it was difficult to make comparisons between the existing code and the new code. He explained the City's original code provisions date from 1980. Since then, SEPA, Shoreline Management Act, Growth Management Act, and other state imposed changes have been added to the code, making it very unwieldy, particularly the appeal process. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 8 Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, acknowledged this issue was complex. He questioned whether the proposed changes reduced public oversight and transparency to land use decisions. He viewed the Council as a check and balance in decisions. He recalled comments by residents during a neighborhood meeting at Seaview Elementary that most had day jobs and did not have time to invest reviewing development proposals versus developers for whom that was their day job. This placed residents at a disadvantage and they relied on the Council to provide the check and balance. He urged the Council to consider how checks and balances and oversight were provided in the process. Betty Larman, Edmonds, commented the recommended amendments to Chapter 20, particularly to Chapter 20.06, made it extremely difficult and onerous for citizens to appeal decisions of the ADB, etc. by adding many hurdles and costs to the process. She noted the filing process was very cumbersome and she questioned the deadline for filing appeals, at 12:00 p.m. rather than the end of the business day. She also preferred appeals be directly to the City Council rather than the Hearing Examiner or a higher court. She noted elected officials knew the rules and were just as smart as the Hearing Examiner. She commented decisions by the Hearing Examiner that result in higher court trials were an unnecessary expense to the City. She urged the Council to reconsider the amendments in Chapter 20.06, fording most unnecessary, burdensome and expensive. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, expressed interest in transparency for the public. She referred to Planning Board Member Reed's request for a spreadsheet in January 2008 that identified the City's current review process, advising that information was not available to the public. She acknowledged the code had been rewritten but the public should have access to the same information the Council was provided. She urged the Council to reject the amendments because the process had not been transparent. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out this was a huge document and required supervision via the appeal process. Rather than appeals going to Superior Court, he preferred they be to the City Council. Via the appeal process, the Council had the opportunity to learn about problems with new regulations. He disagreed with the change in the notice /posting requirement, commenting the City was experienced with that process whereas it would be new to an applicant and there was potential for error. He suggested the deadline for submitting appeals be consistent such as 5:00 p.m. He referred to the appeal regarding the PRD on the former Woodway Elementary site, commenting if the Council had been able to make a decision on perimeter, the City, the applicant and the appellant could have saved a great deal of money and a decision could have been made much sooner. He suggested since the document was so voluminous and contained so many new procedures, the Council hold a second public hearing. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Snyder agreed with the suggestion to make the submission deadline consistent. Next, he explained the GMA and the Regulatory Reform Act put citizens at a disadvantage and developers at an advantage in establishing a record with regard to land use decisions. The Regulatory Reform Act attempted to shift what the legislature saw as inappropriate political intrusion into the process by imposing very tight guidelines regarding what could be heard and when it could be heard. He noted 95% of the document was boilerplate and reflected either case law or Regulatory Reform. He explained there was no way for the Council to make a situation right and be a judge; in a quasi judicial decision, the Council must follow the law and could not make a legislative decision. He emphasized regardless of who held the hearing, there must be a complete record and basic due process requirements and rules of evidence must be observed. With regard to the Burnstead appeal referenced by Mr. Hertrich, Mr. Snyder questioned whether the City had 16 -20 hours to hear an appeal. One of the reasons a Hearing Examiner was used to hold that type of hearing was to establish a clear record developed by a professional that could now be reviewed on appeal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 9 With regard to the public's comments regarding the unnecessary expense of Superior Court review, Mr. Snyder pointed out that was a requirement of the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA); land use permit decisions were appealable to Superior Court. He explained when staff began this rewrite approximately 18 months ago, the intent was to place the legal requirements on the City Council and Hearing Examiner in one place in a straightforward manner. If the Council held a second public hearing, he suggested focusing on the policy decision changes. He offered to provide a citation from the GMA, LUPA, Regulatory Reform, etc. whenever the City was obligated to do things in a certain manner. He summarized most of the decision making process was not discretionary; what the Council hears and whether it goes to the Council or Hearing Examiner is a policy decision, other issues such as burden of proof are dictated by case law or statute. Mr. Bowman commented if the Council chose to hold a second public hearing one of the key policy issues was shifting the responsibility for public notice to the applicant. He noted as staff was reduced, it was appropriate to shift that responsibility. With regard to where the Council would be removed from quasi judicial hearings, he confinned under the proposed amendments that would occur in five incidences: conditional use permit; variances; preliminary plat and major amendments to a plat; shoreline substantial development permits and variances; and draft EIS /SEPA. Contrary to Ms. Larman's comment, the Council would retain the appeal on ADB decisions on major design appeals. Mr. Snyder advised the City currently had a provision that violated state law; a wide open permit review procedure. In accordance with case law, only conditional use permits with a specific condition can be reviewed; all other permits, once final, cannot be revoked. The City's current ordinance allows reopening of an approved permit. Councilmember Orvis observed the Planning Board recommended the City Council be removed from quasi judicial hearings and asked whether the Planning Board had considered decisions made by the City Council versus decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Bowman answered no. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the Planning Board reviewed any case law. Mr. Bowman answered Mr. Park and Mr. Snyder provided legal advice during discussions. Mr. Snyder advised removing the Council from quasi judicial decisions was the recommendation of Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) because the pressure for Councils to make things right in a political sense was the biggest source of liability statewide. He reminded of the Hotel Group application which if appealed the City likely would have lost. Mr. Bowman recalled the Planning Board discussed Nycrum v Chelan County and Mission Springs v Spokane during their deliberations. Mr. Snyder observed Councilmember Orvis' point was if done right, the Council was no more liable than a Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the court cases where the Council agreed with the Hearing Examiner versus disagreed with the Hearing Examiner had been reviewed. He recalled three decisions in which the City was overturned where the City Council agreed with the Hearing Examiner. He referred to Lutheran Daycare v Snohomish County, a Hearing Examiner decision to deny a conditional use permit that the Council agreed with and then received an arbitrary and capricious ruling. He concluded using the Hearing Examiner to make decisions did not prevent arbitrary and capricious rulings. Mr. Bowman agreed, pointing out the odds were reduced significantly. He noted the City's current Hearing Examiners were all attorneys and very good at what they did. Mr. Snyder expressed his preference not to discuss the Burnstead case until the order was in. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council could speak to the judge's opinion on the Burnstead case. Mr. Snyder noted there were 43 grounds for appeal, the judge overturned 40 and 3 were upheld but the order regarding the remedy, whether remanded to the City or cleared up by the order, has not yet been determined. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether he could speak to the judge's published opinion in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 10 the Burnstead case. Mr. Snyder explained the opinion was not final and was appealable. If the Council wished to discuss it, he preferred to recess to Executive Session. Councilmember Plunkett observed there were other policy issues in the proposed amendments in addition to the public notice and quasi judicial public hearing such as the requirement for argument to be in writing and development agreements. Mr. Bowman viewed the development agreement as a regulation rather than a policy question. He agreed the requirement for argument to be in writing was a policy decision. If the Council chose to retain its position as the arbitrator before appealing to court, he highly recommended argument be in writing. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a development agreement could be a policy decision. Mr. Snyder explained the ability for a development agreement is provided for by state statute. The purpose of including it in the code was to address an issue a citizen raised regarding where development agreements were addressed in the code. Mr. Snyder advised these amendments also clarify written appeal requirements which he viewed as a due process requirement. He agreed the requirement for written submissions rather than oral presentation to the Council on appeal was a policy decision for the Council. Councilmember Plunkett questioned whether the City had to allow development agreements. Mr. Snyder advised they were provided for in State law and an applicant could apply for one; the City had the option of saying no. In response to Ms. Larman's comments regarding the Council being as smart as the Hearing Examiner, Councilmember Wambolt disagreed, pointing out the Hearing Examiners are very competent and more experienced than he is in land use matters. He preferred the Hearing Examiner remain involved in decisions. With regard to Mr. Senderoff's preference for the Council to be involved in decisions, he acknowledged citizens wanted the Council involved because they were elected. He noted the WCIA preferred the Hearing Examiner make decisions rather than the City Council. Mr. Snyder relayed the WCIA recommended the Hearing Examiner be used as much as possible. He recommended hearings be held by a Hearing Examiner regardless of whether the Council retained the decision - making authority on appeal, recognizing the difficulty for elected officials to say no to evidence that was not on the record. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mr. Hertrich regarding the notice requirement, observing it would be difficult for someone not skilled in that process. He asked whether the recommendation to shift the responsibility for the notice /posting was in anticipation of a reduction in staff. Mr. Bowman acknowledged it was likely there would be a reduction in staff and if the responsibility were not shifted, it would be one more thing for the reduced staff to do. He assured having the applicant do the noticing worked; he was involved in making that change in Bothell and received only one complaint regarding notice requirements in six years. Councilmember Bernheim asked how late the city offices were open. Mr. Bowman answered 4:30 p.m. Councilmember Bernheim suggested the 5:00 p.m. deadline be changed to 4:30 p.m. He agreed it should be consistent throughout the document and suggested "close of business hours." Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there had been any other cases decided by the Hearing Examiner and appealed to Superior Court that were reversed/modified. Neither Mr. Bowman nor Mr. Snyder could recall any other than the Burnstead case. Councilmember Bernheim was in favor of having the applicant post /mail notice, commenting in most instances the applications would be submitted by experienced developers. Mr. Bowman agreed that would be the case in the vast majority of instances. Councilmember Bernheim asked what type of case a citizen would be required to provide notice. Mr. Bowman answered it would most likely be an appeal. Councilmember Bernheim observed the City could provide notice for citizen appeals. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 11 COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PERMIT PROCESSING AND PROCEDURES. It was the consensus of the Council to change 5:00 p.m. in the code to 4:30 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE DECISIONS WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS, TO REVERT THOSE DECISIONS SO THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Bowman explained under Type III -A the Council would not be reviewing preliminary plats, general variances, sign permit variances, and conditional use, shoreline substantial development and variances and plat vacations and alterations. With the amendment proposed by Councilmember Orvis, those would become Type III -B. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, ORVIS AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, WAMBOLT AND OLSON OPPOSED. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PETERSON, AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, BERNHEIM, AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mitchell Stern, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their time and service to the community. He recognized the closure of Yost Pool was about dollars, noting it was also about part-time jobs for high school and college students, physical and mental health for adults and children, increased demand due to the projected closure of the Lynnwood pool for the summer 2010 and possibly 2011, obesity related health issues, the uniqueness of this facility, and the revenue potential from residents inside and outside Edmonds. He recommended review and refinement of all aspects of revenues and expenditures associated with Yost Pool to ensure its operation was self - sustaining. He recommended a Yost Pool Committee be created to do an in -depth review of the issues and return with a full recommendation regarding projected operation for the summer 2009 and beyond. He expressed his willingness to participate on the committee. Janis Freeman, Edmonds, announced the next meeting of Sustainable Edmonds on Saturday, March 21 at the Port of Edmonds Conference Room from 2:00 — 4:00 p.m. The topic will be "The Edible Garden, Growing Food in Our Own Yards" and three expert gardeners will share their knowledge. She advised everyone was welcome and there was no charge although donations were welcome. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, commented on her involvement in the dog park community and the art community. She relayed three friends received a letter on the Mayor's stationary that appealed for participation on the Citizens Levy Review Committee, and stating the levy committee would be formed to discuss the City's future and determine what services were important to the citizens of Edmonds. It further stated severe cuts would begin immediately without citizen input on services and named several such as Yost Pool and the Discovery Program. The letter was followed by the Mayor's press release on Friday stating these cuts had already been made. With these cuts already in place, it appeared the citizens Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 12 of Edmonds concerns were not being considered in the process. As a member of the Citizens Levy Review Committee, she questioned whether the City would consider their input or continue making cuts. Her hope was that the budget could be reviewed in detail and perhaps other changes could be made. Rose Cantwell, Edmonds, Board President, South County Senior Center, thanked the Council for their approval of the Consent Agenda which included the Senior Center kitchen update. She relayed the median age of an Edmonds citizen was 42; and compared to other cities, there were many more seniors in Edmonds. The City has supported the Center with essentially free rent and annual funding, this year in the amount of $60,000. She suggested the City could not duplicate the services the Center provides to Edmonds seniors for $60,000. Mayor Haakenson has proposed to cut funding to the Senior Center beginning next January, affecting services to the 17% of Edmonds citizens who are over age 65. Last year the Center prepared and served over 15,000 low cost, hot lunches along with needed social contact, produced dozens of wellness and medical services, and provided legal and accounting resources, continued learning, exercise and social opportunities. These services promote physical and mental and social fitness and are made possible by the expertise of thousands of volunteer hours. She urged Mayor Haakenson to reevaluate his decision to cut their funding and asked the Council to do everything possible to fund the center in 2010, reminding the Council that the Senior Center's future was their future. Dave Page, Edmonds, supported having everything possible done at the local level because it was much . more effective and efficient than at the state or federal level. He supported revisiting the wage increases for all employees. He suggested funds could be raised to support Yost Pool and the Senior Center. He pointed out only about 20% of citizens' property taxes went to the City, compared to funds raised by a special levy which 100% would go to the City. He offered to serve on a Yost Pool Committee and to donate toward preserving the pool. Amy Daybert, Shoreline, introduced herself as the new reporter for the Enterprise Newspaper and looked forward to speaking with the Council in the future. Mayor Haakenson observed she was replacing Chris Fyall. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled the operation of Yost Pool previously paid for itself, 100 -105 %. He observed the entrance fee was low and could be increased. If the pool were mothballed, the cost to reopen it would be approximately $500,000. He cited ways to increase revenue, explaining Esperance residents were charged $1 million/year for fire coverage; the City received $300,000 and Fire District 1 received $700,000. There was a similar disparity in the fire contract with Woodway. He suggested Fire and Police Departments' overtime be reduced and that Directors' be assigned staff duties. He questioned how and when the balance in the 006 Fund (Rainy Day Fund), previously $1.927 million, had been spent or if it had been moved to the General Fund. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, commented on Mr. Bowman's upcoming retirement, explaining he had had the pleasure of working with him in a variety of capacities, initially in 2000 -2001 on the Planning Board, more recently as a member of the Highway 99 Task Force, and seeking information regarding land use issues in his neighborhood. During the past nine years, Mr. Bowman has always been the consummate professional, well prepared, his door always open. He thanked him for the excellent service he provided to the community and wished him well. With regard to cuts to funding for Yost Pool and the Senior Center, Council President Wilson recognized these cuts were gut- wrenching. He pointed out in 2006 the Council passed a budget that provided services the City could not pay for, spending down its reserves to do so. The City should have been more level with the community at that time but since they were not, the Council must face it today. He acknowledged Ms. Buckshnis had questions about the budget, pointing out the Council had eight public hearings during the budget process. The process conducted by the Citizen Levy Review Committee will be very extensive. He expressed concern that Ms. Buckshnis had communicated with others this week Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 13 that the levy committee was done, the levy perhaps would be put off, and that the City was circumventing the process. He urged her to allow the process to work and to avoid dissent based on misinformation. Mayor Haakenson referred to Ms. Buckshnis' comment that the letter was on his stationary, pointing out all the City's stationary had his name on it; the letter was from Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh who offered to seek participants from people who support the Parks Department. With regard to layoffs and cuts, he assured that was his job as part of the day -to -day operation of the City and had nothing to do with the Levy Committee who was looking at the City's fixture. He summarized there were two parallel processes; he was trying to keep the City afloat on a day -to -day basis and the Levy Committee was trying to solve the problem for the future. Councilmember Wambolt assured Mayor Haakenson's proposals were not cast in concrete. To Mr. Hertrich, he advised the approximately $2 million he alleged was missing was on page 57 of the budget; it was simply a change in format when Dan Clements became the Finance Director. The only money placed in the General Fund was the interest on those funds; it was still the Rainy Day fund for catastrophes. Councilmember Wambolt also referred to a 60 Minutes program regarding vegetable gardens. 7. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR PARK NAMING POLICY. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh advised the City will be moving forward with construction of two new parks, the first new parks in 25 years. He commented on the importance of establishing a park naming policy, noting the City did not currently have a naming policy and the last time a park was named the City held a contest. The first park at the Old Woodway Elementary School site will be completed in July and the second, the 162 d Street park in North Meadowdale was part of the walkway project. Staff investigated several park naming policies adopted in other cities and found common. themes. The proposed policy was developed using those examples and refined at the January 28 and February 25 Planning Board meetings. The draft park naming policy is the recommendation of the Planning Board following substantial review. The purpose of the policy is to establish consistent standard procedures and guidelines for the naming of public parklands. The renaming of parks is strongly discouraged. The naming of City parks, park areas and park facilities shall be the function of the City of Edmonds Planning Board with assistance from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. Diversity, balance and creativity will be sought during adoption of naives. The name selected for a site will be recommended to the Edmonds City Council for final approval. He reviewed criteria for selecting a park name: A. The geographic location of the facility; this includes descriptive names. B. An outstanding feature of the facility. C. An adjoining subdivision, street, school, or natural feature. D. A commonly recognized historical event, group, organization or individual (living or deceased). E. An individual or organization that contributed significantly to the acquisition or development of the facility to be named. Mr. McIntosh explained the process for naming the park would be a contest with a park- naming form available online and in the newspaper, advertised on Channel 21, and posted at the site. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing to consider the names, accept public input and submit a recommendation to the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 14 He highlighted as part of criteria C, no park shall be given the same name as an existing school site or public facility, except where the sites abut one another. He explained the park on the old Woodway Elementary School site had been called Sherwood Park in the past; however, Sherwood School is located approximately a half mile away. The reason this criteria was included was to avoid confusion between sites where similar functions could occur. Councilmember Orvis commented he did not want to preclude south Edmonds from naming the park Sherwood Park if they wanted and he wanted to ensure the Planning Board would be open to that name. He suggested amending Criteria C to allow consideration of the name Sherwood Park. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR PARK NAMING POLICY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO AMEND THE POLICY TO PROVIDE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS FINAL AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE NAME REGARDLESS OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION. Council President Wilson explained according to the proposed park naming policy, the Planning Board recommends a name for Council approval, there is no language that allows the Council to change the naive recommended by the Planning Board. He suggested adding language to the second paragraph under Policy, "The name selected for a site will be recommended to the Edmonds City Council for final approval and /or amendment." Councilmember Bernheim suggested the policy be amended so that the naming of City parks is the function of the City Council. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO TABLE THE POLICY TO ALLOW STAFF TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, PETERSON, AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, OLSON AND ORVIS OPPOSED. Council President Wilson advised the policy would be scheduled on next week's agenda with the recommended changes. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING INITIATING A REZONE TO IMPLEMENT THE 215TH STREET SW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the Council amended the Comprehensive Plan last year to change the designation of 215th north of Stevens Hospital to a single family residential classification. At that time, the Council did not initiate the rezone necessary to change the zoning of the property. He explained a rezone can be initiated by the property owners or by the Council by motion. Councilmember Wambolt commented this was Jim Underhill's request. Councilmember Plunkett clarified this would complete the initial action to change the Comprehensive Plan designation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 15 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO INITIATE THE REZONE TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO THAT STAFF CAN SET UP THE FILE AND BEGIN THE PROCESS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE VACATION OF THE UNOPENED ALLEY RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED BETWEEN 8TH AVENUE NORTH AND 9TH AVENUE NORTH. NORTH OF DALEY STREET. City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled the Council made a decision several months ago; at the time the property owners at the east end of the alley indicated they needed 30 days to develop easements to allow access to a garage. Development Services Director Duane Bowman and he held meetings with two property owners at the west end of the alley, Mr. Thuesen and Mr. Reidy, in the hopes of reaching a consensus on how certain actions would occur but that process was unsuccessful. Council President Wilson suggested Mr. Reidy speak to the Council. Mr. Snyder advised the Council could reopen the public hearing but cautioned against allowing only one party to speak. For Council President Wilson, Mr. Snyder explained Mr. Reidy has very strong adverse possession claims with regard to portions of Mr. Thuesen's property. The difficulty for staff is these claims were not asserted in either of the subdivision processes that resulted in the grant of a 2 -lot subdivision and now preliminary plat approval for a 3 -lot subdivision on Mr. Thuesen's property. This is one of the cases that went to Superior Court that the City lost and the judge's order confirmed the rights of Mr. Thuesen to develop the property and vested him in three lots. The retaining wall shown in the 2 -lot subdivision as well as the 3 -lot subdivision preliminary plat lies immediately on the property line adjacent to the right - of -way and what will be, upon eventual vacation, Mr. Reidy's property. Mr. Snyder relayed Mr. Reidy believes strongly that he should not have raised that issue to the Council; however, his intent was to identify a way to permit the vacation of property the City had no use for and at the same time recognize the City had given approval for construction of a retaining wall immediately adjacent to the property and if the easement is vacated it would be very difficult for the wall to be constructed. Staff had been trying to identify a way to recognize Mr. Thuesen's right to develop his property as previously approved while vacating the property as the property owners have sought. By vacating the property and retaining a construction easement, the City would not be done with this process. The City will be utilizing the right -of -way construction process to balance the property owners' interests and review construction mechanisms, provide for bonding and insurance for constructing the wall as well as consider whether there are any options to removing a portion of Mr. Reidy's shed. Mr. Reidy has a pennitted garage with an unpermitted shed extension that lies within the right -of -way. Notice to remove the shed extension has been previously given to Mr. Reidy. The City's goal was to reach a compromise that would allow construction of the retaining wall without removing the shed. Council President Wilson asked if during the 9 -month process the Reidys had been fined for the portion of the shed that is illegal. Mr. Snyder answered no, acknowledging an intrusion into a right -of -way was not allowed and the City had the obligation to clear it which was one of the reasons the vacation was appropriate. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING A PORTION OF THE PLATTED BUT UNBUILT RIGHT -OF -WAY OF AN ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN EIGHTH AVENUE NORTH AND NINTH AVENUE NORTH, NORTH OF DALEY STREET, RESERVING AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 16 Councilmember Peterson advised he would abstain from the vote as he had not been involved in the previous discussion. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON ABSTAINED. 10. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MARCH 10. 2009. Community Services /Development Services Committee Councilmember Olson reported the Committee reviewed a proposed ordinance adopting building code exemption provisions for emergency shelters for the homeless such as opening private buildings during a snowstorm. Next, they reviewed the Planning Board's recommendation for park naming policy which was on tonight's agenda. The Committee also discussed ideas staff had developed to help the local building and development community during these difficult economic times. The final item reviewed by the Committee was whether dogs could be allowed on the Sunset Avenue overlook. This will be presented to the Council in the future. Finance Committee Councilmember Wambolt reported staff reviewed the police surplus property list which was approved tonight as Consent Agenda Item I. The Committee reviewed the General Fund Report for the month ending February 28, 2009. Historically the Finance Committee conducted a quarterly review of the budget but due to uncertain revenues this year decided to review a shorter monthly report and continue their more in -depth quarterly review. The Consumer Price Index is estimated to be 2% through the end of 2010 and the budget projected 4.5% which improved the ending cash balance by approximately $500,000. Sales tax revenue has decreased significantly this year which reduced the ending cash balance for 2010 by $1 million. Although the Council approved the formation of a Transportation Benefit District that would collect a $20 per vehicle license fee, it will take the State longer to institute that program, resulting in an approximately $1.50,000 reduction in projected revenues. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out Real Estate Excise Tax (REST) collections for the first two months were 56% less than the first two months of 2008; collections in the first two months of 2008 were down 46% from the first two months of 2007. In 2007 the City collected a total of $1.4 million in REST; that declined to $695,000 in 2008 and the current projection is $365,000 in 2009, one -fourth of the amount collected two years ago. With regard to sales tax, the original budget projected $6 million which was revised at the end of December to $5.4 million and after two months of 2009, sales tax revenue has been further revised to $4 million, $2 million lower than the original budget. Telephone utility tax collections are $40,000 over budget but that is due to the seasonality of collections. Electrical utility tax collections are on budget. For these reasons, the Mayor took the actions he did to address 2009. He emphasized the funds from an approved levy would not have any impact on 2009. Public Safety Committee Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee was provided a final status report on the 2007 -2008 Fire Department Work Plan which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. The Committee also reviewed the draft 2009 -2010 Fire Department Work Plan. The Committee discussed the $600,000 in overtime in the Fire Department budget and encouraged anyone with questions to contact him or Fire Chief Tomberg. He relayed one of Chief Tomberg's goals was to raise the Edmonds Fire Department from a Level 4 city to a Level 2 city which would result in lower insurance rates for homeowners and businesses. Next, the Committee reviewed the 2009 addendum to the Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of Lynnwood which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. The Committee continued its discussion with Judge Fair regarding percentages of incarceration and arrests related to small possession and paraphernalia charges. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 17 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson provided Councilmembers a list of the program cuts. In response to Councilmember Orvis' request for a revised ending cash balance projection, he offered to email that to Councilmembers tomorrow morning. He agreed with Councilmember Wambolt's comment that even with the passage of the levy, the funds collected would not impact 2009. He reported that although the Council approved a 6% cable TV utility tax for 2009, Comcast and Verizon have not yet implemented the tax, reducing that revenue stream. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Wilson advised the Council would accept public input at the March 24 meeting regarding the programmatic cuts Mayor Haakenson announced last week and will consider a resolution affirming those cuts. At their April 7 meeting, the Council will accept public input regarding personnel changes and the Council will consider a resolution affirming those changes. With regard to the $600,000 in overtime, Councilmember Wambolt explained the Police and Fire Departments were always over budget in overtime but the Departments are not over budget in their expenses as any overtime overages required cuts in other expenditures. Councilmember Orvis reported Espi's Sausage & Tocino Company, a Seattle -based business, received an award for cleanliness from the Snohomish County Health District for their temporary food establishment at the Taste of Edmonds. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 18