Loading...
05/14/2001 City Council1 Approve 5/1/01 Minutes Fpprove laim cks EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES May 14, 2001 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding legal and real estate matters, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Greg Wean, Acting Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Haakenson noted this week's Council meeting was being held on a Monday due to the election on Tuesday, May 15. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Davis requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF 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 MAY 1, 2001 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #47976 THROUGH #48092 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 30, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $315,466.44. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #48093 THROUGH #48227 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 7, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $182,275.22. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #1874 THROUGH #1966 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 16 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $710,276.65. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 1 laim for Damages Small Works Roster Police Services - Woodwa Addendum o Towing Contracts Ord# 3359 arbage [Licensing rd# 3360 Comm. on Salaries of Elected Officials ity Hall Roof Re- placement Public Hearing n Ord #3355, oratorium on Establishment or Expansion f Community Churches on Collector Streets (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MERRIE E. GODDARD ($743.37) (F) APPROVAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD FOR SHARED SMALL WORKS ROSTER (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES WITH THE TOWN OF WOODWAY (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM TO THE TOWING CONTRACTS AND INCREASE IN RATES AND FEES (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3359 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 4.64.070 RELATING TO GARBAGE LICENSING AND RATES (J) ORDINANCE NO. 3360 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 10.80.060 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY'S CITIZEN COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS Item E: Report on Bids Received Mav 8, 2001 for Edmonds Citv Hall Roof Replacement, and Award of Contract to Edmonds Roofing ($65,382.63, Including Sales Tax) Councilmember Davis noted the bid amount represented a substantial increase over the amount budgeted. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the heating, ventilation and air conditioning units are located in a well in the center of the roof. The roofing under those units has reached the end of its life expectancy also and when the units are lifted during the reroofing, the wiring to the units will be disturbed. He said this additional wiring was an oversight in the project estimate. Councilmember Davis noted the request was for an appropriation of $22,000 which includes a 10% contingency. He asked if a 10% contingency was included in the $50,000 budget. Mr. Miller answered yes. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows: (E) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED MAY 8, 2001 FOR EDMONDS CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO EDMONDS ROOFING ($65,382.63, Including Sales Tax) 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3355 ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING REGULATION AND MORATORIUM ON THE PROCESSING OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OR EXPANSION OF COMMUNITY CHURCHES ON COLLECTOR STREETS WITHIN THE CITY (File No. CDC-97-123) Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained on March 20, 2001, the Council passed Ordinance No. 3353, which established new regulations governing community facilities, including churches. During Council deliberation, concern was raised by the Council over allowing community churches on collector streets. On March 27, the Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to establish a moratorium on the processing of building permit applications for the establishment or expansion of community churches located on collector streets within the City, which was adopted on April 3. The Council is required to hold a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of passage of the ordinance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Bowman explained Ordinance No. 3333 established the definition of a community church as a church that is greater than 22,000 square feet of gross floor area. He referred to a map in the Council packet that identified the location of all churches within the community, overlaid on the City's street grid system. During the Council's original deliberations, it was determined churches could not be regulated more strictly than schools. At that time, two classifications for churches were established, neighborhood churches (less than 22,000 square feet) and community churches (greater than 22,000 square feet). The Council determined primary schools less than 600 students and less than 60,000 square feet and neighborhood churches less than 22,000 square had similar impacts and could be located in any zone on any residential street. The Council found the traffic impacts for schools larger than 600 students or 60,000 square feet equated to a community church. Mr. Bowman explained under Ordinance No. 3353, community churches were currently allowed on collector streets or minor arterials or within 1200 feet of a principle arterial street. Community churches are also required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit in all zones. The Planning Board considered the issues raised by the Council and forwarded a recommendation that community churches be allowed to be located on collector streets. Mr. Bowman advised the Planning Board minutes were included in the Council packet. The Planning Board found the Council's action appeared reasonable in light of the nature of collector streets and the conditions imposed for community churches. Mr. Bowman explained the Council had two options, 1) adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions to continue the moratorium and remand the matter to the Planning Board for further consideration, or 2) direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to rescind the moratorium. Staff recommends the Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to rescind the moratorium. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Gordy Lindstrom, Calvary Chapel, provided written materials. He spoke in support of the Planning Board and staff s recommendation to rescind the moratorium. He referred to the materials he provided, explaining they believed 22,000 square feet to be on the low end of the appropriate range. He said the assumptions used to calculate the 22,000 square foot threshold considered only peak -hour traffic on one day, the early morning hours for an elementary school Monday — Friday, and Sunday morning for churches. He commented considering traffic during only one peak -hour period skewed the data. His calculation compared traffic over a one week period which resulted in a threshold of 39,000 square feet. He commended the City for balancing state and federal regulations regarding the rights of churches and the community. He said if the Council directed the Planning Board to consider the issue further, the 22,000 square foot threshold should also be revisited and increased to 39,000 square feet. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, distributed written materials. She referred to an April 9, 2001 Seattle Times article regarding "rural limits clash." She pointed out the issue of whether the constitutional rights of churches were properly addressed. She referred to the Beckett Fund for religious liberties. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 3355, REPEALING THE MORATORIUM ON COMMUNITY CHURCHES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 3 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND Residential ParkingEDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.50.020 REGARDING Standards RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS FOR ALL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS EXCEPT FOR THE BC ZONE (File No. CDC-2000-144) Planning Manger Rob Chave explained the Planning Board was asked to consider the current multifamily parking standards and discovered Edmonds' standards were not consistent with national standards or the standards of many other communities in the region. Edmonds standards currently require one space for a single family home and two spaces per multifamily unit. When reviewing regional and national data, the Planning Board discovered Edmonds' standards were essentially backward, single family homes tend to have more parking needs than most multifamily dwellings. The Planning Board developed a graduated scale that would require 1.2 spaces per unit for a studio, 1.5 spaces for a one bedroom multifamily unit, 1.8 spaces for a two bedroom multifamily unit, and 2 spaces for a three or more bedroom multifamily unit. The Planning Board also recommended the parking standards for single family be increased from one space to two spaces per unit. Mr. Chave recalled testimony at the Planning Board hearing included support for increasing the standards, reducing the standards and for the proposed standards. After reviewing the national and regional data and reviewing testimony, the Planning Board forwarded staff's original recommended to the Council for consideration. Councilmember Petso noted the Planning Board decision was not unanimous. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Petso asked whether the amendment under consideration was originally proposed by the architects for the Edmonds Terrace project. Mr. Chave explained they initially provided regional information which staff presented to the Community Services/Development Services Committee for review to determine whether it was an appropriate issue for the Planning Board to review. Councilmember Petso recalled she was on the Community Services/Development Services Committee at the time and was opposed to the proposal but Councilmember White was in favor of moving it forward. As Councilmember White was no longer on the Council, she observed there were no Councilmembers committed to moving the proposal forward. Mayor Haakenson commented that would be determined by the Council's action. Councilmember Petso referred to testimony in the Planning Board minutes from Stan Peha, and asked whether he was the architect for the project. Mr. Chave responded Mr. Peha was the property owner. Councilmember Petso noted Mr. Peha testified to the Planning Board if the amendment was not adopted, he could only construct 48 units on the site but with the amendment he could construct 52. Councilmember Petso inquired whether Mr. Peha was the same person who proposed the amendment. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett commented ideas were provided from a variety of sources. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether the Planning Board supported the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave indicated the Planning Board and staff supported the proposed amendment. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Karen Wiggins, Chair of the Downtown Edmonds Parking Committee, 152 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, said the Parking Committee had been working on this amendment for approximately three years, although their original proposal was one parking space for a one bedroom and two parking spaces Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 4 for two or more bedrooms. She encouraged the Council to support the proposed ordinance and said the Committee would return with a recommendation regarding the BC zone. Stan Peha, 2141 4ch Avenue, Ste. 250, Seattle, spoke in favor of the amendment and commended the Planning staff and Planning Board for a thoughtful, realistic and rational approach to parking standards for Edmonds. He explained he was the owner of a 1.8 acre multifamily zoned parcel, zoned RM 1500, located at the southeast corner of 236th and 84th Avenue which would allow construction of a 52-unit complex with 24 one bedroom units and 28 two bedroom units. He explained under the existing parking code, the project would require 104 on -site stalls. With the parking requirement, setback requirements and landscape requirements, they could not achieve that density on the property and could only construct 48 units on the site. He acknowledged that although it would be possible to make the units smaller or provide underground parking, it was impractical to provide units that were not desirable and it was cost prohibitive to provide underground parking. He said the amendment met the general objectives of the region by encouraging citizens to make use of public transportation and neighborhood services without adding additional vehicles to highways. He cited the location of neighborhood services and Community Transit stops within walking distance of the project. He said the amendment was similar to the standards of several other cities although it did not, as other cities did, allow off-street parking and compact stalls to be included in the calculation of parking stalls. He said the 34% vacancy rate would provide adequate guest parking and off-street parking was available if necessary. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said information he provided to the Planning Board indicated other cities had restrictive parking requirements for multifamily development. He commended the Planning Board for recognizing a parking problem existed in downtown Edmonds by eliminating the BC zone from the amendment. He was concerned with the loss of on -street parking from curb cuts and the lack of guest parking requirements in the City's code. To simplify the standard, he suggested requiring one parking space for one bedroom and two spaces for two bedrooms and the remainder of the proposed parking standard to be provided as guest parking. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Councilmember Petso recalled a comment made by the public that on -street parking could be used if parking was not adequate, however, the zoning map indicated most multifamily and BC zoned properties were along streets such as SR 104 where on -street parking was not permitted. Mr. Chave answered there were multifamily zones primarily along 5th and downtown streets. Councilmember Petso inquired whether 5th was within the downtown business district. Mr. Chave answered most of 5th was zoned BC, the southern end was zoned multifamily. Councilmember Petso objected that the amendment would impact the south end of 5th Avenue, and areas such as 212th, 76th and some areas on SR 104. Councilmember Petso recalled the comment that the vacancy rate would compensate for inadequate parking. She asked whether condominium developments experienced a similar vacancy rate. Mr. Chave was not certain. Councilmember Miller referred to Mr. Hertrich's concern regarding guest parking and curb cut loss, and asked what recommendations staff has in the ordinance to address this issue. Mr. Chave answered via SEPA a developer was required to compensate for an on -street parking space that was eliminated by a curb cut. He said the loss of on -street parking was not addressed in parking standards but would be more appropriately addressed in engineering standards. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Chave explained national and regional data did not differentiate between general parking standards from guest parking; it was assumed the overall parking standards for a development would accommodate residents as well as guests. He said it would be difficult to determine when guests would use parking and nearly impossible to develop a standard to address all possible situations. It was generally left to the developer to provide guest parking along with the overall parking standards. He said if a standard were established requiring guest parking in addition to resident parking, the City would need to ensure the guest parking was maintained as guest parking and was not allocated to residents. Councilmember Miller asked whether staff was concerned with guest parking in the RM zone. Mr. Chave answered generally not because most multifamily zones provided sufficient parking on site. Council President Earling referred to the comment that the Planning Board's decision was not unanimous, noting there was only one dissenting vote. Mr. Chave agreed. Council President Earling commented the Council did not always vote unanimously on issues either. Councilmember Davis asked whether any other jurisdictions had different parking standards for different zones. Mr. Chave answered other cities appeared to address parking standards based on use versus zone. Councilmember Davis noted by not amending the BC zone until the downtown parking study was completed, the City could have a different parking requirement for downtown than in the rest of the City. Mr. Chave noted although the Planning Board recommended the parking standards for the BC zone not be changed at this time, they were targeting only the downtown business area, not BC zones outside the downtown area. Councilmember Davis asked whether the standards excluded only the downtown BC zone or all BC zones. Mr. Chave answered the City Attorney would draft an ordinance for Council consideration; the proposed language differentiates between the downtown business district. Councilmember Davis said it was also suggested at the Planning Board that this amendment be postponed until the downtown parking study was completed. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board was concerned that if information surfaced during the downtown parking study that indicated the amendment was not appropriate, the code would need to be amended again. However, the Planning Board determined there was sufficient information to support the proposed amendment for zones outside the downtown area but wanted to be more cautious before amending the standards for the downtown business area. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE CONSENT AGENDA TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ACTION. Councilmember Petso expressed disappointment the proposed amendment had proceeded this far, noting it was presented to the Community Services Committee twice last year. She challenged some of the comments from staff and comments provided during public testimony, noting her experience has not been that most multifamily developments in Edmonds have sufficient parking onsite. She said her experience both while living in multifamily developments in Edmonds and when picking up her children Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 6 from a visit with friends at a multifamily development recently, has been that there was not adequate parking. She cited rationale given for adopting the ordinance such as encouraging the use of public transit, commenting lowering parking ratios until there was inadequate parking was not a preferred means of encouraging the use of public transit. She noted a Planning Boardmember commented if it was later determined more parking should have been allowed, it would be too late. Councilmember Petso agreed if a project was built without adequate parking, it could be difficult to add parking later and could result in parking spilling out onto busy roads or adjacent neighborhoods that could not accommodate the parking. Councilmember Petso said the most compelling thing to her was that although a number of neighboring jurisdictions were surveyed, the information in the packet indicated cities with the proposed parking ratios included Seattle, Everett, Redmond, Shoreline and King County. She said cities with Edmonds' current parking ratios or that required even more parking included Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Bothell, Mukilteo and Bainbridge Island. She cited the difference in the character of the city and quality of the experience between Seattle or Everett and Mukilteo, Lynnwood or Bainbridge Island. She said although national data indicated these parking standards were adequate, they were likely derived from large buildings and she was hesitant to apply the standards to small condominium developments. If the proposed amendment was adopted, she urged the City to follow parking conditions in developments that were constructed under this ordinance. She encouraged Councilmembers to consider voting against the proposed amendment. Council President Earling said although the discussion had centered on multifamily parking standards, the proposed amendment also addressed single family parking standards. He noted the City currently required only one parking space per single family home. He supported increasing single family parking standards to require two spaces per single family home. Councilmember Petso said she could support increasing single family parking to two spaces per single family residence without amending the multifamily residential parking standards. She indicated she would oppose the motion if the increase in the parking standards for single family was achieved at the cost of inadequate parking for multifamily residential. Councilmember Davis said his primary concern had been not doing the amendment twice but realized now the downtown parking study would likely not change the proposed amendment. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. Definition o 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND Street EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 21.90.120 REGARDING CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF STREET Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the City's Development Code currently defined a street as a public right-of-way or access easement that provides vehicular access to more than three lots. However, other portions of the code and the policy of the engineering division identified a street as providing access to five or more lots. The purpose of the amendment was to change the definition of a street to match the practice. The amendment would also provide consistency between sections of the code. He explained in some short plats, a private easement was constructed to serve the lots; however, if the easement served more than three lots, the easement was considered a street under the current definition, requiring the properties to adhere to the required street setbacks. Councilmember Petso inquired whether there was any risk of developments piggybacking on an easement resulting in their use for access to five or more lots. Mr. Chave explained the intent was to project all Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 7 lots that could be accessed via an easement. If there was additional developable property, an attempt would be made to size the easement to serve all properties. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City .requires setback from the planned line right-of-way to reserve space for any additional roadway width that may be necessary to accommodate future development. Mr. Chave said engineering standards may not require the entire street width be constructed initially, at the time additional development occurs, the entire street width must be constructed. Councilmember Petso asked how adequate space could be provided for a street in the future. Mr. Chave said the setback occurred from the planned line right-of-way. Councilmember Petso recalled public safety staff requested any access serving five or more homes be a public road and meet the standards that allowed adequate access for fire apparatus. She asked whether that could be assured under this amendment. Mr. Chave agreed it could be. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, asked the purpose/philosophy for requiring a narrower or wider setback. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, commented Edmonds had a number of small, narrow private roads that were considered driveways. She asked how the ordinance would impact development or redevelopment of properties with streets only 9'/z feet wide. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. In response to Ms. Yard, Mr. Chave said properties whose access was developed to standards in place at that time or before standards were developed, would be grandfathered and the pavement/right-of-way would not need to be changed if a new house were constructed in place of the old. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comments, Mr. Chave explained one of the purposes of a setback was to provide adequate space between the building on the property and the right-of-way. The logic behind an increased setback was to retain more space for a busier road. The purpose of the amendment was to address small, dead-end cul-de-sacs that did not require additional setbacks. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE CONSENT AGENDA TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Tam Osborne, Administrator of Music, Edmonds School District, and member of the Edmonds onnection Daybreaker Rotary, invited the Mayor and Council to the I" Annual Jazz Connection on May 26. He Event described the daytime performance which will include select middle, junior high and high school youth jazz performances from the greater Seattle area and Edmonds at the Edmonds Floral Center, Edmonds Theater and the Edmonds Masonic Lodge. The evening program will feature select professionals from the greater Seattle area as well as national professionals at the Puget Sound Christian College at 7:00 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 8 p.m. He said the daytime youth program was free and there was a small cost of the evening program. licVTickets are available through Ticketmaster or any Edmonds Daybreaker Rotarian. 7. PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT CHARTER Facilities isrtCommunityServices Director Stephen Clifton explained typically one of the first actions undertaken b a istrict p p tYP Y Y Harter City/County and Public Facilities District (PFD) board was to adopt a charter outlining the powers granted to the PFD and the PFD board as outlined in the charter. He explained the Edmonds PFD charter was modeled after the City of Vancouver's charter and the ordinance establishing the PFD was modeled after Lynnwood's ordinance. He pointed out mandatory disclaimers would be required to be printed and/or stamped on all contracts, bonds and other documents to address concerns raised by the Council regarding who would inherit the obligations of the PFD. Mr. Clifton explained Article IV of the PFD charter outlined the powers of the PFD, Article V addressed board powers, and Article VI addressed meeting times, quorums, minutes, etc. Article VIII addressed proposals for amending the charter. Mr. Clifton pointed out amending the charter would require an affirmative vote for four PFD members as well as approval by the City Council. Councilmember Petso noted paragraph "g" of Section 4.01 gave the PFD authority to issue bonds, "issue its general obligation bonds and revenue bonds pursuant to the Act." She inquired whether the Act required a public vote prior to issuing bonds. Mr. Clifton explained the "Act" this paragraph referred to was Chapter 3 5.5 7 of the Revised Code of Washington, the enabling legislation that allowed creation of a PFD. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Act required a public vote prior to issuing bonds. Mr. Clifton answered yes. Councilmember Petso referred to paragraph "c" in Section 5.01 which gave the PFD authority "to borrow money and incur indebtedness in accordance with the Act," and asked how the Act limited the PFD authority to incur indebtedness. Zach Lell, Ogden Murphy Wallace, answered he would need to review the Act but the intent of the charter was to ensure all indebtedness occurred in accordance with the statutes. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the PFD would be a municipal corporation, bound by an annual budget and any long-term borrowing would be subject to the voting requirement. Councilmember Petso referred to paragraph "e" of Section 4.01which states the PFD had the power "to impose charges, fees and taxes authorized by the Act provided, however, that no such taxes shall be imposed without either a public vote or the prior consent and approval of the City by ordinance," and asked whether the PFD could impose a tax approved by the Council without a public vote and, if so, should the ordinance be revised so that this could not occur. Mr. Snyder said the ordinance establishing the PFD stated no new taxes would be imposed without a public vote. The PFD's power to impose charges, fees, and taxes was limited by the requirement for a public vote and the initial ordinance that created the PFD. Mr. Clifton said an example of charges, fees and taxes authorized by the Act was the PFD, with voter approval, had the ability to increase the sales and use tax by 0.2%. Mr. Snyder said another example of a charge would be establishing a copy charge for providing public records. Councilmember Petso referred to the language "no such taxes shall be imposed without either a public vote or the prior consent and approval of the City by ordinance, noting the ordinance establishing the PFD indicated taxes would not be imposed without a public vote, yet this paragraph appeared to indicate only Council approval was required. Mr. Snyder clarified the Council could not exercise any authority it was not granted by statute. He said he was not aware of any taxing authority the PFD could exercise without a public vote. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 9 Councilmember Davis referred to Section 5.07 which states "the Board shall be represented by the City Attorney of the City of Edmonds..." which appeared to indicate the City would be responsible for the payment of services the City Attorney provided to the PFD. Mr. Clifton explained in the PFD ordinance, the Council authorized the use of the City Attorney for administrative purposes for at least the first year of operation. After that time, it was unclear how legal representation would be provided to the Board. Councilmember Davis expressed concern the City would continue to be responsible for attorney costs beyond the first year. Mr. Snyder commented if the City paid for services the City Attorney provided to the PFD, it would be considered part of the required match. Mr. Snyder suggested changing "shall" to "may" in that sentence to address Councilmember Davis' concern. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE #3361 WITH THE CHANGE OF "SHALL" TO "MAY" IN SECTION 5.07. Councilmember Petso said she would support the motion although there were several unresolved questions regarding what powers were being given to the PFD and the Board. She acknowledged that unless the Council adopted the ordinance, the City would run up against the deadline, which she doubted would be met. Ord #3361 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance reads as follows: Public Facilities District ORDINANCE NO. 3361 GRANTING A CHARTER TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES Charter DISTRICT 8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Finance Committee The Finance Committee did not meet on May 8, 2001 Public Public Safety Committee Safety Councilmember Petso reported both items the committee reviewed were approved on tonight's Consent Committee Agenda, an addendum to the towing contract and increase in rates and fees, and renewal of the Police Services Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Woodway. Community Community Services/Development Services Committee Services/ Councilmember Orvis reviewed the items the committee considered, the first an innovative traffic Develop. calming case. He explained City Engineer Dave Gebert and Development Services Manager Duane Services Committee Bowman outlined an inexpensive traffic calming method using reflective material on the pavement that gives the impression of a three dimensional object. The trial area was the intersection of 881" and 1881" in the Seaview area. The second item the committee considered was approved on the Consent Agenda, a shared small works roster with Lynnwood. Third, the committee supported the City's participation in the Seashore Transportation forum and sent an email to Councilmembers seeking volunteers to attend the Forum. Next the committee discussed accessory building regulations and staff was directed to review this with the Planning Board. The final item the committee discussed was pavement overlay for 84t" Avenue from 212t". Staff advised 84"' will be reconstructed in the future but the overlay was necessary because the street would not last until the reconstruction and repaving will help with some reconstruction cost. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 10 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS o Council Council President Earlin advised the one -day Council retreat planned for this month would be Meeting on g y M I ay 29 rescheduled for next month. He advised there would not be a Council meeting on the fifth Tuesday, May 29. Lodging Tax Councilmember Petso reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee met last week to consider the dvisory Council's request for $34,000 for PFD matching funds. The Committee granted the request and took Committee $34,000 from the ending cash balance of the hotel/motel tax fund. The Committee also discussed art Walk on activities planned in downtown Edmonds on Thursday, May 17, which will include the Sherwood May 17 Elementary Percussion group who will perform at 5:15 near the fountain. Mayor Haakenson commented there would also be an art walk as part of Thursday's events. D.A.R.E Officer Trading Cards 1 Councilmember Marin referred to a $663.80 expenditure in the Police Department for trading cards. He learned from Sgt. Debbie Smith that the trading cards were created for D.A.R.E. officers and officers serving in the high school and include information regarding the officer and a personal message from the officer as well as express appreciation to the companies who donate vehicles for the D.A.R.E. program. He recalled a discussion with former Police Chief Hickok who explained placing officers in the high school and providing tools such as trading cards assists officers in connecting with students and often avoid potential problems. Councilmember Marin commended the Police Department for this innovative approach. Councilmember Miller announced he will not be seeking reelection to the Council for a number of reasons, primarily because he accepted a position as the director for southern California for the International Public Safety Systems Group and will relocate to southern California by June 2002. Councilmember Miller explained he enjoyed his service on the Council and looked forward to spending time with his family next year while still in Edmonds. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Emil 1111111�: ri�CHAS�,4�z� ,.SANITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 14, 2001 Page I 1 AGENDA - EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t' Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. MAY 14, 2001 SPECIAL MONDAY MEETING 6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding Legal and Real Estate Matters 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 May 1, 2001 (C) Approval of Claim Checks #47976 through #48092 for the Week of April 30, 2001, in the Amount of $315,466.44. Approval of Claim Checks #48093 through #48227 for the Week of May 7, 2001, in the Amount of $182,275.22. Approval of Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks #1874 Through #1966 for the Period April 16 Through April 30, 2001, in the Amount of $710,267.65. (D) Acknowledge Receipt of Claim for Damages from Merde E. Goddard ($743.37) (E) Report on Bids Received May 8, 2001 for Edmonds City Hall Roof Replacement, and Award of Contract to Edmonds Roofing ($65,382.63, Including Sales Tax) (F) Approval of Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood for Shared Small Works Roster (G) Authorization for Mayor to Sign Interlocal Agreement for Police Services with the Town of Woodway (H) Authorization for Mayor to Sign Addendum to the Towing Contracts and Increase in Rates and Fees Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MAY 14, 2001 Page 2 of 2,_ (1) Proposed Ordinance Amending the Provisions of ECC 4.64.070 Relating to Garbage Licensing and Rates (J) Proposed Ordinance Amending the Provisions of ECC 10.80.060 Regarding the Recommendation of the City's Citizen Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials 3. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3355 Adopting an Interim Zoning Regulation and Moratorium on the Processing of Building Permit Applications for the Establishment or Expansion of Community Churches on Collector Streets Within the City (File No. CDC-97-123) 4. (20 Min.) Public Hearing on the Planning Board Recommendation to Amend Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 17.50.020 Regarding Residential Parking Standards for All Zoning Classifications Except for the BC Zone (File No. CDC-2000-144) 5. (10 Min.) Public Hearing on the Planning Board Recommendation to Amend Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 21.90.120 Regarding Changing the Definition of Street 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 7. (10 Min.) Public Facilities District Charter 8. (10 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings 9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min.) Council Comments 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.