Loading...
11/20/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES November 20, 2001 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5d' Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Dave Earling, Council President David Stern, Chief of Police Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Kevin Taylor, Assistant Fire Chief Lora Petso, Councilmember Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Dave Orvis, Councilmember Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Richard Marin, Councilmember Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Steve Koho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Mgr. Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner ALSO PRESENT Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Meredith Storey, Student Representative Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA hange to [Agenda COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO REMOVE ITEM 3 FROM THE AGENDA (AT STAFF'S REQUEST) UNTIL A FUTURE DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Earling recognized a large contingency in the audience on one issue (opposing the sewer treatment plant). He explained the Council rules were not to take public comment until the scheduled Audience Comment portion of the agenda, which was scheduled as agenda item 11 tonight, approximately two hours into the agenda. He offered to suspend the rules and allow no more than four speakers for no longer than a total of ten minutes for the group to speak regarding this one issue. He noted the Council would also accept public comment during agenda item 11, Audience Comment. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO SUSPEND THE COUNCIL'S RULES AND TAKE TESTIMONY FROM NO MORE THAN FOUR SPEAKERS FOR NO LONGER THAN TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page I COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 11/13/01 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2001 Minutes pprove (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #51930 THROUGH #52053 FOR THE WEEK OF ]aim NOVEMBER 13, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $220,655.12 hecks laim for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LISA RYND amages (UNDETERMINED AMOUNT) jAnimal ontrol (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE TO THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE r(G) ORDINANCE NO. 3374 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF Rez one Property EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL East of 9715 PROPERTY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY EAST OF 9715 EDMONDS WAY, FILE NO. R- dmonds 2001-94, FROM RM-1.5 TO BN AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL Way BECOME EFFECTIVE Item F: Prouosed Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Man of the Citv of Edmonds to Change the Proposed Zoning Designation of Certain Real Property Located at 820 151h Street SW and Commonly Known as the Ordinance Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, from RS-20 to Public-P and Fixing the Time when the Same Shall Become Rezoning Effective. 820 15" St. Councilmember Petso questioned the legality of some Councilmembers voting on this rezone as the (Cemetery) request was heard by the Council prior to her as well as other Councilmembers' term on the Council. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council entered a decision at that time; this was the ordinance to make the rezone occur. Therefore, the Councilmembers were not barred from voting. Councilmember Petso questioned why the ordinance had not been adopted following the Council's decision. Senior Planner Steve Bullock responded it had been misplaced and recently discovered that it had not been adopted. Councilmember Petso questioned whether the rezone was necessary since in the meantime the Council had adopted the Community Facilities ordinance, which addressed non -conforming uses in residential areas. Mr. Bullock was uncertain whether the Community Facilities ordinance allowed the same amount of flexibility that a rezone to Public-P would allow and whether it would accommodate the uses the Cemetery Board wished to pursue. Councilmember Petso said her review of the ordinance indicated that although it may be slightly a little more difficult procedurally, non -conforming uses had been addressed with no greater effort than possibly a conditional use permit or other protection for the neighbors from undesired uses allowed under Public- P zoning. She preferred delaying this item to allow staff to determine whether the rezone was still necessary. If the rezone was not necessary, she preferred the property remain under the current zoning to protect/reassure the neighborhood that the current uses would remain. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council make a motion to reconsider, noting that in order to change the Council decision, another public hearing process would be required. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Bullock noted the ComprehensivePlam identified this'proper`ty as public use. The only zoning classification for that Comprehensive Plan designation is Public-P, therefore, that was one of the justifications for the original rezone, to bring the zoning into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Not acting on the ordinance would require staff pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designation. Councilmember Plunkett questioned how a Councilmember who did not vote on an issue could make a motion for reconsideration. Mr. Snyder suggested another alternative was to vote on a motion to approve the ordinance; if it passed, the point was moot. If the vote failed, a motion to reconsider would be appropriate to restart the public hearing process as well as the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He noted a motion for reconsideration was appropriate in this case because the quasi judicial portion of the decision was complete and this was the legislative portion of the zoning decision. He suggested a motion to approve the ordinance would be the most appropriate. Council President Earling commented the Council went through a public process at the time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F. Councilmember Orvis shared Councilmember Petso's concern with the Public-P zoning. He agreed ordinances had changed since this rezone was approved and it may not be necessary. He preferred the zoning not be changed to Public-P if it was not necessary. MOTION FAILED 3-2 (LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY). The vote was as follows: Council President Earling, and Councilmembers Marin and Plunkett voted in favor; Councilmembers Petso and Orvis were opposed. Mr. Snyder explained an ordinance required an affirmative vote of four members of the Council. The Council could table the matter until all seven Councilmembers were present or refer the issue to the Planning Board to initiate a process to review the issue. He advised the Mayor was not permitted to vote on issues such as this. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO TABLE AGENDA ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item tabled is as followed: (F) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 820 15TH STREET SW AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY, FROM RS-20 TO PUBLIC-P AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 3a. AUDIENCE COMMENT BY BRIGHTWATER OPPOSITION GROUP BrightWater Treatment Mayor Haakenson explained last week, the City Council directed staff and him to begin looking at ways Plant to prevent King County from siting the BrightWater treatment plant in Edmonds. In view of the City Attorney's caution to the Council about making comments because of the possibility of Council voting on issues related to the treatment plant in the future, Mayor Haakenson indicated he would be the designated Council spokesperson. Mayor Haakenson explained a lack of response from the Council tonight on this issue was due to the direction provided by the City Attorney. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 3 BrightWater John Quast, 15714 75th. Place W, Edmonds, read a proclamation from the citizens of Edmonds, stating Treatment the Edmonds citizens do not want BrightWater at the Unocal site and presented symbols of their resolve. Plant The proclamation requested the symbols be kept close during any deliberations on the `Blightwater" issue. The "Edmonds Says No To BrightWater Committee" presented Councilmembers with symbols (a sign reading "Edmonds Opposes Sewer Plant" mounted on a plunger). rightWater I Mary Wilson, 1116 2nd Avenue S, Edmonds, explained she was initially impressed with King County reatment Executive Sims' comments on the ability to reuse water. She pointed out that would not be possible in rant the near future with a treatment plant located in Edmonds. The placement of BrightWater at the Unocal site would not be conductive to growth in Edmonds. Although some may be intrigued by the possibility of mitigation and the possibility of co -locating transportation with the treatment plant, she noted co - location would not be possible due to the limited amount of space at the site. This beautiful view property was best used for anything other than a sewage treatment plant. She cited the possible impacts from a spill at the Unocal site resulting from a storm, power outage, etc., noting the effect on the environment would not be as devastating on a site such as Route 9. Ms. Wilson was opposed to a third treatment plant in Edmonds, noting the City already provided numerous services to the region such as the ferry. She applauded the Council and Mayor for opposing the BrightWater treatment plant. rightWater Robert Freeman, 622 7th Avenue S, Edmonds, urged the public and Councilmembers to attend the reatment December 10 King County Council meeting where the King County Council would consider legislation Cant to adopt the proposed advancement of two sites including the Edmonds Unocal site for the next stage of consideration for the BrightWater facility. He cited the opportunity for the King County Council to override the King County Executive's recommendation to adopt two sites and to eliminate Edmonds from further consideration. He urged the Council and public to attend the December 10 King County Council meeting as well as contact members of the King County Council to request the Edmonds Unocal site be removed from consideration. He provided materials with the addresses of King County and Snohomish County Councilmembers and details regarding the location/time of the December 10 King County Council meeting. I13215/216 3. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 215 Ponds AND 216; ESTABLISHING CONSOLIDATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 215/216 AND THE CONSOLIDATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, DISTRICT NO. 215/216; FIXING THE AMOUNT, FORM, DATE, INTEREST RATES, MATURITY, AND DENOMINATIONS OF THE CONSOLIDATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 215/216 BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE SALE AND DELIVERY THEREOF TO SEATTLE-NORTHWEST SECURITIES CORPORATION OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON; AND FIXING THE INTEREST RATE ON LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT INSTALLMENTS' This item was removed from the agenda at the request of staff (action taken under agenda item 1). Prosecutor 4. ANNUAL REPORT FROM PROSECUTING ATTORNEY JEFFREY GOODWIN Annual Report Prosecuting Attorney Jeffrey Goodwin reported he has been the City's Prosecuting Attorney for the past six years and requested he be allowed to continue to provide these services for the foreseeable future. He noted in the past three years, he had not sought an increase in the budget. He explained the budget was currently $60,000 with a $5,000 overhead for appeal costs. He offered to include appeal costs up to $5,000 into a $65,000 budget, thereby assuming the risk that appeals may exceed $5,000. He acknowledged this was an increase but was not in addition to the current budget. Mayor Haakenson expressed the City's appreciation for Mr. Goodwin's services. He advised the Council would consider the 10% increase in fees during budget deliberations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 4 [1 0 omish 5. UPDATE BY SNOHOMISH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL my omic elopment Deborah Knutson, President, Snohomish County Economic Development Council (SCEDC), nail recalled last year the SCEDC solicited community -wide support for strengthening and growing an economic development program in Snohomish County. The initial phase of that program was completed in May 2001. Although the financing goal was officially surpassed, she noted this was a long term goal and the most visible outcomes may not be apparent for 1-2 years. She reviewed initiatives including 1) marketing and recruitment, 2) business retention and expansion, 3) workforce development, and 4) infrastructure and land use. She described each initiative, beginning with marketing, explaining a marketing manager was hired with the initial goal of media coverage. Marketing efforts included an insert in the August issue of the Puget Sound Business Journal that highlighted Snohomish County, particularly opportunities in South County. Plans are to do this on an annual basis with the goal of Edmonds getting significant coverage in 2002. She explained the SCEDC participated in several tradeshows and are in the process of conducting market research to identify future opportunities. She invited the Council to join the SCEDC at their annual meeting on December 12. Ms. Knutson described the business retention and expansion initiative which included hiring new staff members and completion of a survey of business in Snohomish County on issues related to government, permitting, expansion, etc. The Procurement Technical Assistance Center, which assists local companies in obtaining government contracts, placed $1.6 million in contracts in Snohomish County during 2001. Ms. Knutson provided detail regarding the workforce development initiative which included hiring a workforce training coordinator and implementing over $5,000 in training and apprentice programs in Snohomish County. The SCEDC participated in several marketing programs and job fairs and funded technology and biotech training programs and is also working with Edmonds Community College on a high tech training program. Regarding the infrastructure and land use initiative, the SCEDC hired staff to help facilitate the overall permitting process and established the urban centers initiative with grant funds from Puget Sound Regional Council. In addition, the SCEDC plans to host a housing summit in mid -December and is developing a legislative agenda to highlight competitive issues in Snohomish County. Ms. Knutson explained there has been discussion of narrowing the four initiatives to two in 2002 which better describes the Council's efforts in 2002 — business development and community development. The emphasis would be on business recruitment, working directly with realtors and developers, increased media exposure, and policy work. Ms. Knutson described successes the SCEDC participated in for South Snohomish County include a new business in Harbor Point, a new company on 164th outside Lynnwood, and another firm in Lynnwood. Ms. Knutson asked for the City Council's continued support of their economic development initiatives. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were any tangible results in Edmonds. Ms. Knutson acknowledged there may not be any direct results in Edmonds at this time but there has been interest expressed regarding opportunities near Stevens Hospital and Hwy. 99. She noted there could be opportunities in 2002 due to the emphasis on business development and recruitment. She noted Edmonds was also an important provider of executive housing. Council President Earling expressed his appreciation for the work the SCEDC has done over the past year. He stressed the importance of business retention and workforce development. He suggested the housing summit address how affordable housing could be constructed in all communities so that people seeking jobs could find housing. He supported an emphasis on maintaining a strong job market, which in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 5 turn would ensure the economy in South Snohomish County remained strong. Ms. Knutson explained the Workforce Development Council was doing a skills gap analysis and coordinating that data with Everett and Edmonds Community Colleges to provide job retraining for future jobs. She said the SCEDC was also working with existing business to expand their market share. Appealof 6. CLOSED RECORD MEETING — APPEAL OF A HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY Baring AN APPEAL OF A STAFF CODE INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION OF A HEDGE. Exmin ecision THE "HEDGE" IS LOCATED AT 18108 — 88TH AVENUE WEST AND IS ZONED SINGLE - edge at FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12). (Appellants: Walter and Elena Lee / File No. AP-01-167/AP-01-1121 18108 880' Ave. W. Mayor Haakenson advised this was a quasi-judicial matter and in accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, asked whether any Councilmember had a conflict of interest or ex-parte contact to disclose. Councilmember Plunkett advised about 45 days ago, he had a conversation with Mr. Dixon, an associate it at Windermere, who represents the Lee's in the sale of their property, in which Mr. Dixon discussed the r hedge with him. Councilmember Plunkett advised he referred Mr. Dixon to City staff and said the Lees could appeal staff's interpretation but advised he was unable to discuss the matter further. Councilmember Plunkett said this contact would not impact his ability to hear this matter fairly and impartially. Councilmember Petso advised she received a telephone call from a citizen prior to discovering this item was on the Council agenda as a closed record appeal. The citizen informed her it would be an issue on the agenda and that she should be prepared to understand the definition of a hedge. She was confident this conversation did not impact her deliberation on the matter. Mayor Haakenson asked whether any audience member had an objection to the participation of Councilmember Petso or Councilmember Plunkett. There were no objections voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate in the matter. Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained the definition of a hedge in the City's Code was "Hedge means a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees." He explained in 1989, in a case before the Edmonds Hearing Examiner, further direction was provided on what a hedge was. He referred to the 1989 Hearing Examiner decision included in the Council packet. He explained staff s interpretation which was upheld by the Hearing Examiner was when the definition of a hedge referred to a row of shrubs or low trees, low trees was meant to be a species characteristic. Planting a tree when it was short did not make it a low tree if the tree has the species characteristic that it would become a tall tree. For example, a row of redwood planted when they were 6-feet tall would not be considered a hedge because a redwood tree had the ability to grow extremely large. In this situation, there is a row of cedar trees planted between the appellant's property (Lee) and the adjacent property (Igbal). Staff inspected the site and found the trees to be cedar trees that would grow well over 40 feet in height at maturity and therefore did not meet the definition of a hedge. Staff responded to the complainant with this interpretation. That decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner who, based on the information, denied the appeal. The City has now received an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. Councilmember Orvis asked whether color versions of the black and white photographs in the packet were available. Mr. Bullock agreed to locate the photographs and circulate them to the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 6 Councilmember Plunkett noted Mr. Bulloek's presentation did not mention slope. Mr. Bullock explained the issue of a hedge based on the definition had nothing to do with a slope, only that it was a row of shrubs or low trees. Therefore, all determinations have been based on the definition of a hedge and whether the trees in this instance met the definition. Staff s response was they do not. Staff has chosen not to include the slope as part of the decision as the matter was solely regarding the hedge. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether slope had been irrelevant in other hedge determinations over the past 10 years. Mr. Bullock agreed it was. Councilmember Petso asked whether slope was considered in determining fence heights. Mr. Bullock answered no. Councilmember Petso observed if someone planted a hedge using a species that typically grew to a larger height than the undefined small tree, this was considered planting a row of trees and was not required to be limited to 6-feet in height. Mr. Bullock. said the City has not made a decision regarding what a low tree is; staff uses the Western Garden Handbook to determine typical mature height of a tree. If someone planted a tree that reached 15 feet in height or less, staff would likely consider that a low growing tree. If these were planted in a row and were over 6-feet in height and had been planted subsequent to adoption of the tree and hedge code, staff would require the owner to cut them to 6-feet. He emphasized the City had not established a height that constituted a low tree. Councilmember Petso concluded a row of tall trees was currently not regulated in the City's Code. Mr. Bullock agreed. Applicant Doug Purcell, 16614 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, representing Elena and Walter Lee, who reside on 88d' Avenue, referred the Council to Exhibit C-1, a photograph with the Iqbal house in the foreground and the Lee house in the background. He identified the hedge under consideration, the row of trees above the retaining wall behind the Iqbal house. Mr. Purcell said the language in the Code is "a hedge is a fence or boundary consisting of shrubs or low trees." He said utilizing the "fence or boundary" phraseology limited whether a particular set of trees was a hedge and did not rely only on the shrub or low tree definition. He said the first consideration was whether this was a fence or boundary and then how was a shrub or low tree defined. He pointed out that in 1989 this was defined in a manner so that if a tree at a mature height was determined not to be low (which in the 1989 case was in excess of 30 feet), it was not a low tree and was not regulated. Mr. Purcell cited two reasons for the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision. First, the concept of potential height was erroneous in this context because these trees were planted in an area behind a retaining wall in an area 6-8 feet. If planted in an unlimited area, these cedar and pine trees would grow to very high heights, however, in these confines, 2 feet apart and within an area of 6-8 feet, they would never achieve that height. Therefore, in the context of where these trees are planted, they were low growing trees. Second, low is relative. He noted building is occurring in areas where previously it may have been assumed no houses would be built and this house is a good example of that. Hydrologic technology has improved so that retaining walls can be created to define a major differential between properties by cutting the slopes to develop a building pad on a lot that previously may have been unbuildable. Mr. Purcell concluded in this context, a tree that grew to a height of 12-30 feet where the differential in grade was 20-25 feet as a result of cutting the hill constituted a low growing tree and should be regulated in the same way as a hedge. He pointed out there was a great deal of assessed property valuation attributable to views and views were a protectable resource not only for individual owners but because of the property tax revenue they generate for the municipality. He urged the Council to focus on the fence or boundary issue and using the analysis he described, overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision and have the hedge row cut back to protect those views. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 7 Councilmember Plunkett recalled staff advised the definition of a high or low tree was by species. He observed Mr. Purcell's suggestion was that the Council also consider where the tree was planted. Mr. Purcell responded, using Mr. Bullock's example of a Redwood, if the tree were bonsai, it may never achieve more than 2-3 feet. He emphasized the way the plant was utilized should be the focus and not whether it was a tree that given the opportunity to grow to maturity in an appropriate planting area, would achieve a very high height. The focus should be that the tree was utilized to form a hedge row and not the species. Councilmember Plunkett observed Mr. Purcell was asking the Code to do something that was not part of the Code. He commented the City had a definition of a low tree in the Code. He asked Mr. Purcell if he had information to indicate there was Code language directing the Council to consider where a tree was planted. Mr. Purcell differed that there was not a definition of low tree, there was a definition of a hedge — a fence or a boundary that consists of shrubs or low trees." He said the problem the Hearing Examiner encountered in 1989 was there was not a definition of low tree in�the code and so he created a definition - if it will grow taller than 30 feet, it's not a low tree. Mr. Purcell said the fact that the Hearing Examiner created that definition did not mean the Council could not consider the current height of the tree, the height it can be expected to achieve in its present location as well as the use being made of the tree rather than only considering the species. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Code encouraged views but did not require protection of views and asked whether Mr. Purcell was suggesting the Council should protect views. Mr. Purcell said he was suggesting the phrase "fence or boundary consisting of shrubs or low trees" be interpreted in a manner that encouraged and protected views of property owners. There were no parties of record present who wished to provide testimony. 1 City Attorney Scott Snyder referred the Council to Chapter 17.30 regarding fences and hedges which provides direction regarding how both are to be measured. He cited Chapter 17.30.000(a) which states "the fence required permit will be required for any fence over 3 feet in height which is within 10 feet of the street right-of-way." He cited Chapter 17.30.010 which refers to measuring of fences. He explained Chapter 17.30 defined height from finish grade and regulated it within the specific setback from the street property line. He said in this type of situation, the City would rely on, 1) the plain meaning and 2) administrative stare decisis (pattern of decision making). He explained generally the courts defer to the staff and Council when there is a well established practice. When that practice was changed, it would be opening a new door and there would not be that deference by the court. He recalled the Council had considered on two or three occasions over the past 20 years whether to regulate trees and in each case has passed. He explained if the Council wanted to take that action, it was within the Council's legislative discretion but the question was whether to use legislative tools or a quasi-judicial action to open this issue. Responding to Council President Earling, Mr. Snyder explained this was a controversial issue because some people enjoy views and others enjoy trees. To protect someone's view, someone else's tree would be cut. He summarized the fence and hedge chapter of the Code regulated fences and hedges within setbacks from the street right-of-way. Councilmember Orvis confirmed the Code did not contain a definition of a low tree. Mr. Snyder said the City's definition of hedge was virtually identical to the Webster's definition; both use the term low tree but neither define it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 8 Councilmember Plunkett observed staff -defined hedge or- fow trees by species. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether this was established by the 1989 Hearing Examiner's decision or whether it was staff s interpretation. Mr. Bullock said it was taken from the 1989 Hearing Examiner's decision. Councilmember Plunkett questioned how the staff or Council could determine the height of a tree based on where it was planted. Mr. Bullock agreed there were conditions where a tree would not reach its mature height for that species due to where it was planted but it would be impossible for staff to determine the height a tree could potentially reach. Mr. Snyder explained in the event of ambiguity, the codes and laws are construed in favor of property owners' ability to use their property. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Councilmember Marin indicated he would vote to reverse the' Hearing Examiner's decision. He noted the photograph illustrated, and there were several other situations in the City, the net effect of trees planted close together was punitive to someone else. He noted the spirit and result of this type of planting was in effect a hedge. Councilmember Plunkett appreciated Councilmember Marin's point of view but said this was not the place to decide that issue and preferred it be addressed legislatively such as referring suggestions for refining the Code to the Community Services Committee. He was not in favor of overturning ten years of precedence that established that slopes could not be considered, noting slopes and views were the same issue. He questioned how the staff or Council could make a decision based on where trees were planted. He said the applicant has suggested in written materials that there are special circumstances on this lot. He disagreed, noting slopes and view protection were broad issues in Edmonds and neither were special circumstances in Edmonds. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND DENY THE APPEAL. Council President Earling supported the motion, noting if the neighbor was willing, they could trim the trees and solve the problem. He acknowledged the trees would eventually block views and the neighborly thing for people with trees that block views would be to enter into a long term agreement to preserve the view. While he appreciated Councilmember Marin's point of view, to accomplish that, the Council would have to identify species and place trees on lots. That is the reason the Council has chosen to pass on this issue in the past. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Petso explained as a legal matter, it would be difficult to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision. She noted this was not the first time frustration had been encountered with a 6-foot high fence placed on a slope so that in effect it was an 18-foot fence. Likewise, that a resident could make a hedge of three large pine trees but could not make a 12-foot hedge out of a 12-foot plant was odd. She said the neighborly thing to do was to keep matters such as this out of the City's hands. She suggested if the Planning Board had an opportunity in the future, they improve the ordinances that govern how fences are measured. Councilmember Orvis indicated he would vote no because in this context planting cedar trees close together constituted a hedge. MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN AND ORVIS OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 9 Budget Work Session 7. BUDGET WORK SESSION Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler explained this was the fourth in a series of presentations regarding the 2002 preliminary budget. The Council conducted three previous work sessions that focused on the General Fund, Capital Funds, and other major operating funds of the City. At last week's Council meeting, Council President Earling requested Councilmembers submit any proposed changes to the budget and requested the Mayor prepare a list of cuts that could be enacted to partially offset revenue losses associated with I-747. She recalled the preliminary included a 3% property tax increase. Ms. Hetzler referred to a summary in the Council packet of the proposed changes submitted by Councilmembers. She displayed an itemization of potential cuts identified by the Mayor: Snohomish County Economic Development Council $ 10,000 Edmonds Alliance Matching Funds 25,000 Fire Department Reserve Program 32,000 Building Department Overtime 5,000 Sprinkler and Alarm Inventory Project 6,500 Reduction in Police Department Microfilming 2,000 Reduction in Police Department Software Training 3,900 Reduction in other Police Training 5,000 Reduction to Miscellaneous Police Expenditures 5,000 Transfer Prisoner Care Costs from General Fund to Criminal Justice Fund 7,000 Transfer SnoCom Dispatch Fees from General Fund to Criminal Justice 11,300 TOTAL Reduction from the General Fund $113,500 Ms. Hetzler noted the Vehicle Wash Station, a $137,500 non -General Fund item, originally included in the preliminary budget, had been removed from the budget. Ms. Hetzler reviewed changes that have occurred since the last budget work session including a new contract negotiated with the Edmonds Fire Department and Woodway. The City can expect to receive $81,000 in additional revenue from Woodway in 2002 and beginning in 2003, this revenue would increase to $123,000 on an ongoing basis. Ms. Hetzler explained in October, the City was informed by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office that if I-747 passed, the City would no longer be able to take advantage of its "banked" property tax capacity. She explained in the past the Council had the authority to increase the property tax levy by a maximum of 6% and if the Council chose not to levy the full 6%, the remaining capacity was "banked" and could be accessed at a later date. During 2000, the Council did not implement the full 6% property tax increase and in 2001, the Council did not enact any property tax increase. She was informed last week the earlier interpretation was in error and the City could in fact access the banked capacity. She displayed the impact if the Council chose to enact the allowed 1% property tax increase against the banked capacity (rather than the 2001 actual levy). This would generate an additional $600,000 in property tax revenue versus the $87,000 in property tax revenue if the 1% increase .was applied to the 2001 actual levy. She summarized the City could be in complete compliance with I-747, apply the 1% increase against the banked capacity and generate $600,000 in property tax revenue versus the $87,000 it was initially believed the City would be restricted to. Ms. Hetzler displayed a table illustrating the 2002 budget adjusted for the items previously discussed and reflecting the impact of the full property tax recapture allowable by law. Linder this scenario, the City's Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 10 General Fund would have a positive cash, balance at the- end of "each year until the end of 2006. She noted this was a marked improvement over previous forecasts, which showed the City reaching a deficit as early as 2004. She explained after further discussions with the Mayor and Council President, she developed a five year forecast that illustrated what property tax levy would be needed to generate enough revenue to cover the increased costs of the Fire Department and Medic 7 in the 2002 preliminary budget. She explained the addition of the three battalion chiefs and increased Medic 7 costs add $422,000 to the budget on an ongoing basis. The maximum property tax recapture would be an increase of 8.8% over the current year's levy. A property tax increase to 'cover solely the increased cost of the Fire Department and Medic 7 would require an increase of 5%. She noted this scenario was still considerably better than previously believed but the budget had a deficit at the end of 2005 and a significant deficit in 2006. Ms. Hetzler explained the impact of a 5% recapture on both the regular property tax levy and the EMS levy on a home valued at $250,000 would be a $33 per year increase. Ms. Hetzler summarized the Council had several options to mitigate the revenue loss from I-747. The .Mayor's list of reductions would eliminate $113,000. Reductions submitted by Councilmembers offer various degrees of savings to the General Fund. The new contract with Woodway will generate an additional $122,000 per year. A 5% property tax recapture would generate $435,000 per year. She pointed out the difficulty with this year's budget was that for 2002 and 2003, the budget was balanced because the Council has prudently banked one-time only revenues received in the past 2-3 years. Unfortunately those one time only revenues are not expected to continue and the City will draw down its cash balance at a faster rate in the next five years. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff prepare a table showing a property tax increase equivalent to the Puget Sound inflation rate. Ms. Hetzler commented the Puget Sound inflation rate was approximately 3.5%. She advised with a 3% increase, as was proposed in the preliminary budget, the regular property tax levy would generate $215,000 and the EMS levy would generate $46,000. The impact on a $250,000 home would be an additional $21 per year. Councilmember Plunkett asked what the budget deficit would be in 2005 at that rate. Ms. Hetzler indicated she would provide that to the Council. Councilmember Petso recalled last week Ms. Hetzler indicated the City should strive for $2 million in ending cash balance. Ms. Hetzler commented that is a desired amount but the City has never attained that level. Councilmember Petso recalled the City had an ending cash balance in the past of $2.8 million. Ms. Hetzler explained that was a one-year phenomenon, noting there have been years when the ending cash balance has been below $500,000. Councilmember Petso asked whether it was desirable for the City to attain expenditures that did not exceed its revenues. Ms. Hetzler answered it was not required under the Washington State definition of a balanced budget; as long as the City had sufficient beginning cash and revenues to cover expenditures, the City had a balanced budget. She agreed it would be desirable if revenue growth and expenditure growth matched on an annual basis. Councilmember Petso observed if the City did not have the level of reserves that were desired and the City had expenditures that exceeded revenues for at least the second year, should the City take action to remedy that situation and balance expenditures and revenues? Ms. Hetzler did not recommend trying to accomplish this in one year. She explained the preliminary budget was formulated to allow a five-year period to get revenues and expenditures at a breakeven level. Councilmember Petso observed the five- year forecast showed the situation getting worse. Ms. Hetzler explained the five-year forecast showed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 11 existing revenue but the Mayor recommended the Finance Committee begin identifying new revenue sources. Councilmember Petso noted a 5% property tax increase was a $33 per year increase on a $250,000 home which was in addition to the $150 increase as a result of the library annexation. Ms. Hetzler acknowledged the library annexation was a new tax; the $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed value would be in addition. Councilmember Orvis requested Ms. Hetzler prepare a scenario with the 3% property tax increase plus the debt service for the Frances Anderson Center funded from the second'/a% of Real Estate Excise Tax. Councilmember Petso inquired about the savings that could be realized if the Council suspended the Mayor's authority to provide 5% salary increases in addition to cost of living and in addition to L5 salary increases. Ms. Hetzler responded it would be approximately $150,000. Council President Earling commented the Council had not previously discussed many of the options presented. He noted one issue that must be resolved by next week was the amount of the tax increase. He noted passage of the 2002 budget was scheduled on next week's agenda and requested it be removed because the Council would likely not be ready. He noted the Council may choose to continue tonight's public hearing as the Council continues to deliberate on the budget. He proposed Councilmembers think about their priorities, what property tax increase was appropriate, and what expenditures should be reduced. He indicated his plans to call Councilmembers on Friday to build an understanding of the Council's priorities and consensus on the property tax rate, expenditures, etc. He requested Councilmembers provide a telephone number if they planned to be out of town, including Ms. Dawson who would be sworn in at the next Council meeting. Councilmember Petso commented during her term on the Council, approximately two years, the City budgeted for two police patrol positions that had not been filled. She questioned whether the positions were necessary. Chief of Police David Stern noted the positions have been filled with overtime. He said a week ago, he hired one of the positions and hoped to hire the other as soon as possible. Councilmember Petso noted the 007 Fund (Criminal Justice) had annual revenues of $500,000 and an ending cash balance of $1 million. She commented this fund may be able to support operations currently paid for from the General Fund. She inquired about restrictions on the use of Criminal Justice funds. Chief Stern said Criminal Justice funds must be used for direct, frontline law enforcement services — officers or equipment that supported the frontline officers. In the past, there was a policy decision to use these funds for one-time equipment purchases and upgrades versus long term, ongoing staffing costs. Ms. Hetzler commented the Criminal Justice Fund was expected to have an ending cash balance at the end of 2002 of slightly more than $262,000. As many expenditures as possible have been funded from the Criminal Justice Fund in 2001 and 2002 to reduce the balance. She noted this fund previously received Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, which resulted in the accumulation of a significant cash balance. However, this revenue source is no longer available. Councilmember Petso inquired about annual revenues in the Criminal Justice Fund. Ms. Hetzler answered the 1/100' sales tax generates about $525,000; recommended expenditures in 2002 are $698,000. Councilmember Petso observed the cuts Mayor Haakenson proposed included cutting the Fire Department Reserve Program and asked Fire Chief Tom Tomberg to describe the program. Chief Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 12 Tomberg explained the Reserve Program was authorized for 15 personnel although the department seldom had 15. These were non -combat individuals who do, not actively fight fires. These individuals provide support at the fire scene and respond to medical emergencies when the on -duty crews are extended at a single incident or multiple incidents. They drive vehicles to the scene, set up equipment, staff the staging area, staff the rehab area, fill breathing bottles, provide stand-by on fire scenes, staff aid cars at civic events, etc. Councilmember Petso asked whether the $32,000 cut was the entire Reserve Program or a portion. Chief Tomberg advised it was the entire program. Councilmember Plunkett recalled Edmonds had fewer officers per population than the national standard. Chief Stern explained national standards were based on the size of the community. The standard for a community Edmonds' size was 1.3 officers per 1,000 population; the City was at the standard with the addition of the two officers. Councilmember Plunkett noted without the two officers, the City was slightly below the national standard. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff calculate the per year rate for the next five years if the 8.8% recapture were instituted as well as the 1% per year. Councilmember Plunkett inquired what the effective tax rate would be in the next five years if the 8.8% recapture were instituted. Ms. Hetzler answered she could calculate the levy but not the rate which was a function of the total revenue divided by assessed valuation. She noted in some instances, the property tax levy could be raised but the rate would decline due to changes in assessed valuations. Councilmember Plunkett advised he would contact Ms. Hetzler to explain his request further. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Petso noted the Cemetery Fund had income of $60,000 per year and inquired why the $56,000 annual transfer to the Cemetery Fund from the General Fund was necessary. Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde explained the $56,000 was for the Cemetery Sexton's salary. She noted the operation and maintenance of the cemetery was funded from the fees generated from services and grave sales. She explained 10% of all grave sales were placed in a perpetual care fund with the goal of increasing that fund so that interest revenue could potentially be an option for funding the sexton. Councilmember Petso questioned the $345,000 budgeted for the interurban trail, a trail that barely intersected Edmonds. Ms. Ohlde explained the Council made a decision to wait until the links were around the City before doing its portion. The Lynnwood and Shoreline sections have reached Edmonds and Edmonds is now the last link. She commented the cost may not be as much as estimated and grant funds may be available to offset some of the cost. Council President Earling asked Councilmembers to reserve Saturday, December 1 in the event it was necessary to schedule an extra budget workshop. Property Tax 8. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ESTABLISHING PROPERTY TAX LEVIES FOR THE YEAR Levies 2002 Public Baring (A) PROPOSED RESOLUTION FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL NEEDS AND JUSTIFYING INCREASING THE MAXIMUM LAWFUL PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR THE CITY REGULAR PROPERTY AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES LEVIES AT A RATE OF 1%. THIS INCREASE OF CITY REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES OVER THE 2001 LEVY EQUATES TO A RATE EQUAL TO 1.023% OR $167,338. THE INCREASE OF THE CITY EMS LEVY OVER THE 2001 LEVY EQUATES TO A RATE EQUAL TO 1.023% OR $35,789. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 13 (B) PROPOSED ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS, INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR 2002 BY 1.023% ABOVE THE 2001 LEVY, REPRESENTING A 1% INCREASE BASED ON THE MAXIMUM LAWFUL LEVY, INCREASING THE EMS LEVY FOR 2002 BY 1.023% ABOVE THE 2001 LEVY, REPRESENTING A 1% INCREASE BASED ON THE MAXIMUM LAWFUL LEVY, LEVYING CURRENT TAXES OF $750,130 FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler explained under State law,.the City was required to hold a property tax public hearing before adopting the property tax levy and the City was required to establish the levy by November 30. She explained the information in the Council packet was based on information available when the packets were prepared and assumed the City was restricted to 1% on the current levy. She reiterated she had learned this was not the case and if the Council chose to do so, it could enact a rate increase of up to 8.8% under I-747 and based on the City's banked capacity. Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, commented when the Council placed the library annexation on the ballot, it was with the understanding if annexation was approved, there would not be a property tax increase for the next year due to the funds annexation would generate. He commented on the expense of the remodel of Development Services Department in the Financial Center. He urged departments to return funds they did not spend. He expressed concern that even with the funds generated by the library annexation, the City could not make ends meet. He commented the cost of the Public Safety building required the City to appropriate additional funds for the 1960i Street fire station. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NEXT WEEK (NOVEMBER 27, 2001). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 002 Budget 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2002 BUDGET Public Baring Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, questioned the estimate provided for the 196`" Street fire station. He cited proposed cuts in the State's budget and suggested a small increase in the sales tax to offset public safety costs. Ruth Arista, 18431 High Street, Edmonds, commented another opportunity for income other than raising the sales tax was to increase the level of business by recruiting new businesses and supporting existing businesses. She referred to the proposal to create a marketing campaign for Edmonds (by Edmond Economic Stakeholders), explaining there were many businesses and organizations interested in participating/contributing to the marketing campaign. She recommended the City support the proposal for the marketing campaign as increasing the amount of sales tax collected in the City was important to maintaining the quality of the community as well as provision of City services. Council President Earling commented the proposal was still under review by the Council. Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, reiterated previous requests that the Council consider implementing -a B & O tax. He pointed out service industry in the City did not generate sales tax but whose vehicles put wear and tear on the City's infrastructure. He urged the City to consider a B & O tax, even a small amount, rather than raising property taxes. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recommended the City freeze salaries, pointing out that a director in the City earning $96,000 per year would be unlikely to leave if they were told their salary would remain the same the next year. He estimated salaries between 2000 and 2001 had increased 10% Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 14 and 10% between 2001 and 2002, citing°one case where'there'was'a 25% increase from 2000 to 2002. Regarding Medic 7 costs, he recommended the City use the same per capita formula that was used before the other cities left Medic 7. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NEXT WEEK (NOVEMBER 27, 2001). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Public 10. JOINT MEETING WITH THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD. Facilities PRESENTATION ON YEAR 2001 ACTIVITIES, REGIONAL CENTER MARKET DEMAND District AND FEASIBILITY STUDY, RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS OF THE BOARD, AND BOARD Board FINANCIAL STATUS Community Services Director Stephen Clifton introduced representatives who will be making presentations and/or answer questions: James Monroe, John McGibbon, Terry Vehrs, and Jan Conner of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board (PFD); Greg Easton, Principle with Property Counselors; Andy Olson, Managing Director, The Chambers Group, Inc.; and George Robertson, Principle with George Robertson and Associates. Staff available to answer questions included Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler, himself, and Zach Lell, legal advisor to the PFD. Following the presentation, Mr. Clifton indicated he would provide revenue and expenditure details for the PFD for 2001 and 2002. Mr. Clifton explained in 1999 the Washington State Legislature passed PFD legislation which allowed a city or county to establish a PFD. A PFD is an autonomous body with the same kind of powers granted to a City Council and is authorized to construct, maintain, rehabilitate or operate a regional center. Under PFD legislation, a regional center is defined as a facility exceeding $10 million and serves as a conference center/convention center or special events center. In April 2001, the City Council established the Edmonds PFD and authorized them to begin the due diligence process of determining whether there was a market demand and whether it was feasible to construct a regional center. In July 2001, the Edmonds PFD hired a consultant, Property Counselors, in association with The Chambers Group and George Robertson and Associates, to prepare the market demand and feasibility study which has now been completed. He explained Ms. Conner would provide background information on PFD activities that have occurred since June 2001, Property Counselors will present information and findings of the market demand and feasibility study, followed by James Monroe presenting next steps for the PFD. Jan Conner, Edmonds Public Facilities District Board, explained in April 2001, the Edmonds City Council passed an ordinance establishing the Edmonds PFD, a municipal corporation and independent taxing district. As allowed under PFD legislation, the PFD Board was charged with studying and determining whether a regional center should be built within the City of Edmonds. The City requested that the PFD study a proposal for a regional center with three possible components, an 800-1,000 seat performing arts center, a convention/conference/special event center for 500-600 attendees, and a new hotel (to be funded privately) to support the convention facility. Ms. Conner explained following the June 26, 2001, joint meeting with the City Council, the PFD Board sent a resolution imposing a .033% sales and use tax to the Washington State Department of Revenue. She pointed out this is not a new tax but a credit against the existing sales and use tax collected by the state (the state reimburses the PFD .033% of what is collected). The Board received its first check on October 31, 2001 in the amount of $13,466 related to funds collected in July. These funds have been used to pay for due diligence activities. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 15 Ms. Conner explained a critical step in the due diligence process is to determine whether there is a market demand for a regional center, and if so, whether development is feasible. To find this out, the PFD retained the services of Property Counselors. to study the market demand and feasibility of a regional center. As requested by the City Council, three general areas were studied as potential locations for a regional center including 1) the Central Business District, 2) Puget Sound Christian College site, and 3) Hwy 99 between 220'' Street SW and 240 Street SW. Ms. Conner noted the Board has met 12 times between July and November 2001. During these meetings, the Board reviewed responses to the Request for Qualifications, interviewed consultants and selected Property Counselors, established an address and phone number, reviewed the overall timeline related to preparing the report, adopted a year 2001 budget, and discussed at length issues related to financing and development of a regional center with the consultants. A presentation by Property Counselors on both phases of the Regional Center Market Demand and Feasibility Study was presented to the PFD Board on November 1, 2001. At that meeting Board members asked many questions of the consultant and discussed what future steps the Board should take now that they have the information to work with. Greg Easton, Property Counselors, reviewed the key objectives of the study, 1) whether there is market demand for a regional center with conference, performance arts and hotel components, 2) what are the appropriate sizes for each component, 3) what combination of elements provides maximum benefit, 4) whether the optimum project is affordable, and 5) what locations provide best opportunity for marketability and economic stimulus. Mr. Easton commented the primary purpose of a convention/meeting facility was economic stimulus — to attract visitors from outside the area, get them to stay multiple days, and maximize the amount they spend in the community. Mr. Easton explained the study considered market conditions including that 80% of major meetings have 500 or fewer attendees, and a key requirement for 500 person meetings is 200 hotel rooms within walking distance. The study noted Edmonds has no meeting facility with capacity greater than 300 and there are only 92 convention quality hotel rooms in the downtown area. He explained the study also considered increasing competition due to expansion of existing facilities and proposed new facilities such as in Lynnwood. He noted meeting planners expressed strong interest in Edmonds if adequate numbers of hotel rooms were available. The study concluded that a facility sized to accommodate 500 attendees would attract larger groups without duplicating existing capacity, the facility would compete for statewide association and convention business and regional corporate meetings, and market support is contingent on availability of 200 hotel rooms committed to conventions. Next, the study considered market demand for a hotel. Mr. Easton reviewed hotel market conditions including the seven hotels in Edmonds, but only Harbor Inn has 92 convention quality rooms. The competitive set of properties includes 1,038 rooms in Edmonds and Lynnwood, which had occupancies of 63.7% and average daily rate of $83 during 2000. He explained the group meetings segment is small at 13% of total room nights, and the market is expected to grow at slower rates in the near future. The study concluded, 1) a new hotel necessary to support meeting facilities would be 150 or more rooms with a full range of food and beverage and meeting services, 2) new hotel projected to reach 68% occupancy rate in five years if a new meeting facility were built and 60% without one, 3) even with a new meeting facility, hotel would be dependent upon commercial and leisure market segments, and 4) performance under either scenario was not strong enough to attract a private hotel developer given current conditions. Mr. Easton reviewed the market conditions for a Performing Arts facility including: types of facilities; Edmonds' high propensity to support arts; existing local groups who perform over 200 times yearly; existing facilities in schools that are shared with private groups; possible sale/redevelopment of Puget Sound Christian College; increasing difficulty finding performance dates for non -priority uses in regional facilities; and new larger facilities in Northshore and Bellevue that will not be available for five to ten Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 16 years at the earliest. The study concluded:-1 1) the strongest need in the community is for a 900 seat facility to offset potential loss of Puget Sound Christian College auditorium, 2) a facility with 500-600 seats would meet a broad range of needs and supplement existing facilities in the region, and 3) both sizes could serve local groups, regional groups, and touring groups. Mr. Easton reviewed three facility concepts that provide a range of capabilities: 1. Stand Alone Conference Center - conventions with 500 attendees and simultaneous smaller events 2. 900 Seat Theater - performances with 900 attendees, performances with 500-600 attendees with balcony closed. 3. Multi -purpose Facility - convention with 400 attendees (using main hall and theater) and performances with up to 500-600 attendees Mr. Easton displayed site diagrams (prepared by George Robertson) of the three facility concepts that illustrated the program requirements and event space identified in the market analysis. He described the site requirements (including the building footprint and parking) for each concept: 4.3 acres for a standalone conference center including 350 parking spaces; 3.9 acres for the 900 seat theater including 251 parking spaces; and 5 acres for the multi -purpose facility including 350 parking spaces. He explained the theater would have full technical capabilities including a fly loft behind the stage with a height of at least 60 feet. Mr. Easton also displayed a site diagram for a 150 room, 3-story, full service hotel, explaining the building footprint and parking would require a 2.5 acre site. He summarized the conference center, performing arts, and hotel required a total of 10.7 acres. He noted the drawings illustrated all parking in a single lot immediately adjacent to the facility but site requirements could be reduced somewhat if parking were provided in a parking structure. Mr. Easton reviewed a possible renovation scenario for the Puget Sound Christian College to determine how that facility could accommodate some of these uses including renovation of the existing auditorium and gymnasium and renovation of the existing office building. He noted retaining those buildings and demolishing the remainder would provide space for two levels of structured parking to accommodate the 251 space parking requirement for a 900 seat auditorium. Mr. Easton reviewed conclusions of the site analysis: 1. The downtown area is the most desirable for a regional center, particularly the conference element due to image and proximity to hotel rooms, services, and retail facilities. Accommodating a facility downtown would require assembly of a site, additional hotel rooms, relief from height limits, and adequate funding for land costs and possibly structured parking. 2. Highway 99 corridor is not suitable because of lack of image and surrounding amenities. 3. Puget Sound Christian College is suitable for theater component, but has conflicts with surrounding residential area and high purchase price for existing buildings. 4. Recognition of additional sites on periphery of downtown may be suitable but are as yet unidentified. Mr. Easton reviewed the operating financial requirements, noting public conference and performing arts facilities typically operate at a deficit. He displayed the operating revenue, operating expenses and net operating increase for each concept, noting in every case, operating revenues would not be sufficient to cover operating expenses. His analysis showed the expense coverage ratio was 71% for a conference center, 59% for a 900 seat theater, and 59% for a multi -purpose facility. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Easton reviewed the capital costs including building cost, site development costs, soft costs, and land acquisition. The total cost for each concept was $13.9 million for a conference center, $27.4 million for a 900 seat theater, and $28.7 million for a multi -purpose facility. He explained building costs included premiums to address sound mitigation and the land acquisition cost was assumed at $25 per square foot. He noted land acquisition costs may be higher if there are existing improvements on the site. He explained the estimated cost of acquisition and renovation of the Christian College auditorium would be comparable to the cost of new construction. Mr. Easton reviewed the financial requirements for a hotel with and without a meeting facility, including revenue and expenses, cash flow (before debt service and income taxes), capitalized value and development cost. He summarized the gap between cost and value indicates that such a project would not be feasible under current market conditions. Mr. Easton reviewed economic impact generated by the three concepts including direct spending, and facility operations, for a total annual impact of $12.8 million for a conference center, $3 million for a 900 seat theater, and $9 million for a multi -purpose facility. He explained the maximum impact was derived from events attracting overnight visitors. The direct impact spreads throughout the community in the form of salaries and wages, purchase of services and supplies, employer profits, and taxes. Mr. Easton reviewed potential revenue sources for each concept in year 2006 including existing hotel taxes (if redirected), local PFD Sales Tax Credit (if the January 2003 construction deadline was met), admission tax for center events, parking tax for center events, and incremental sales tax from visitor spending for a total potential revenue of $364,800 for a conference center, $412,500 for a 900 seat theater, and $398,100 for a multi -purpose facility. He reviewed the operating deficit in year 2006 for each concept ($311,600 for conference center, $370,400 for 900 seat theater, and $508,900 for multi- purpose), noting the sources were adequate to fund operating deficits if hotel taxes were redirected and local sales and use tax were available (requiring construction be initiated by January 2003). Mr. Easton reviewed capital financing requirements as follows: Capital Funding Conference Center 900 Seat Theater Multi -purpose Capital Cost $13,898,000 $27,390,000 $28,706,000 Financing Costs 278,000 548,000 574,000 Total Required $14,176,000 $27,938,000 $29,280,000 Debt Service (if voter approved) $1,005,900 $1,982,300 $2,077,500 Tax on $250,000 Property $77 $152 $159 Mr. Easton explained the capital costs must be funded from a combination of voter approved debt or grants and contributions. Contributions from Snohomish County PFD or other sources could reduce the amount required from voter approved debt. Mr. Easton summarized the study's conclusions: 1. Opportunities exist for all elements over time and are worthy undertaking, but there are significant challenges. 2. Conference center element will not succeed without additional hotel rooms and demand for those rooms does not exist at this time. 3. Downtown Edmonds and immediate periphery is most desirable location although adequate sized sites are scarce and potentially expensive. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 18 4. Funds for the project are relatively scarce: Capital`costs­rnust be raised from voter approved debt or grants and contributions. Operating deficit funding may require redirection of existing revenues. 5. Reduction in size and scope of project is not recommended as it would not result in new visitor spending or meet needs of existing arts groups. 6. Preferred approach is to seek sites where land is contributed and special funding is available. Mr. Easton summarized the benefits of each concept include economic benefits, availability of facilities for public use, and a source of pride and identity for the community. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett commented that assuming the hotel and funding issues could be addressed, a conference center, theater and multi -purpose facility were all viable. Mr. Easton answered the study found a need for each within the community. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether any one of the facilities was more economically viable than the other, or only that one was less expensive. Mr. Easton explained a facility created two broad categories of benefit: economic impact and facilities for use by local citizens and groups. The emphasis placed on the category of benefit may result in one facility being more appropriate than another. For example, a community that placed more emphasis on economic impact would be more likely to favor a conference center type facility; a community that placed more emphasis on providing facilities for local citizens and groups may be more likely to select a performing arts facility, and a community that balanced both may be more interested in a multi -purpose facility. Councilmember Plunkett observed that in addition to economic viability, the community's interest would be important in determining the appropriate facility. Mr. Easton agreed. James Monroe, Edmonds PFD Board, recapped the annual economic impact ($9 million), new jobs (72), and stable, state-of-the-art venue for a variety of cultural and performing arts activities. He explained that in order to realize these benefits, several challenges must be met. To accomplish this task, the Board made a policy declaration in the form of a resolution passed at its October 22 meeting that reads as follows: the Board voted to proceed with the concept of a multi -purpose facility with a 900-seat theater and 7,000 square feet of meeting space as the Edmonds Regional Center. In conjunction with the multi -purpose facility, the Board will research the possibility of a hotel built within the near future that would benefit the multi -purpose project and the goals for the community. In order to implement this policy, the Board is developing a job description to hire a project manager/director. The Board will be seeking someone who has a background in planning, design, and construction phases of large regional facilities. His/her responsibilities would include preparing a critical path, continuing with due diligence activities, assisting the Board with site selection and acquisition, researching funding options, liaison with government entities and other community organizations, generating public input, helping the Board select a design team, developing criteria for facilities management and marketing, and devising a communications strategy. Mr. Monroe explained the Board estimates revenues of approximately $10,000 per month in reimbursed sales and use taxes to be available in 2002. He noted this did not include any monies that may be allocated by the Snohomish County PFD. Major expense items include the project manager and support to the PFD by the City. Mr. Clifton reviewed Edmonds PFD revenues and expenditures for 2001. He described 2001 revenues which include: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 19 $34,000 — City match 13,466 — sales and use tax (actual through October) 23,000 — sales and use tax (November and December) $70,466 - total anticipated revenue for 2001 He reviewed 2001 expenditures, noting Ordinance #3358 required the PFD repay any amount of the $34,000 over the 1/3 match of the amount collected for 2001. The total sales and use tax anticipated to be collected in 2001 is $36,,466, less the 1/3 match ($12,143) leaving an amount to be repaid to the City of $21,857. This amount subtracted from the $70,466 in total revenue leaves $48,609 to pay Property Counselors for the Regional Center Market Demand and Feasibility Study. He noted the Study cost $56,375; the remainder will be paid to Property Counselors later in December and in January. The contract between the PFD and Property Counselors allows full payment by February 2002. He reviewed expenditures (actual through November and estimate for November and December) for staff time, Ogden Murphy Wallace, and minutes for a total expenditure of $24,008. Mr. Clifton reviewed the PFD revenues and expenditures for 2002, explaining the PFD could request matching funds for the amount of sales and use tax collected in 2002 or the PFD could use the expenditures for staff, Ogden Murphy Wallace and minutes as the in -kind match for January — July 2002. He explained the sales and use tax collected in 2002 was estimated to be $10,000 per month through July for a total of $70,000, which requires a 1/3 match of $23,100. He noted the July threshold was used as this is the date the Edmonds PFD has asked the Snohomish County PFD to extend the viability deadline date. He noted there was a three month lag in the collection of sales and use tax; if the Edmonds PFD decided to disband after July, the PFD would receive an additional $30,000. Mr. Clifton reviewed January — July 2002 expenditures including $7,766 for the balance of the Feasibility Study, and $27,300 for staff time, Ogden Murphy Wallace and minutes for a total estimated expenditure of $35,066. He noted there was sufficient revenue in 2002 to cover the PFD's expenditures as well as hire a project manager. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Clifton explained the sales and use tax collected in October was identical to the estimate. Projections for collection of sales and use tax were reduced to $13,000 in November (which represents taxes collected in August) and $10,000 for December (which represents taxes collected in September that reflects the economic downturn following September 11). Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council needed to include a match in the 2002 budget. Mr. Clifton answered a match did not need to be included in the budget if the Council was willing to allow the PFD to use the debt incurred to date to provide the match for 2002 sales and use tax generated in January — July. Councilmember Plunkett commented since the Council had not made a decision to do that, the PFD would need to request this decision be made during the budget deliberations. Mr. Clifton explained before this funding scenario was developed, $30,000 was included in the preliminary budget. Council President Earling inquired about the extension of the viability deadline to July 2002. Mr. Clifton explained in addition to Everett and Lynnwood forming a PFD, Snohomish County Council also formed a countywide PFD. All sales and use tax generated in Snohomish County, excluding Lynnwood, Everett and Edmonds, are being collected by the Snohomish County PFD. The Snohomish County PFD has made a decision to provide a significant financial amount to the Everett Arena and Lynnwood Convention Center. The Snohomish County PFD established a viability deadline whereby Everett, Lynnwood and Edmonds PFDs must demonstrate by December 1, 2001, that they have a viable project. Because Edmonds established its PFD so late in the process, the Edmonds PFD requested an extension of the viability to July 1, 2002 to provide time for the Edmonds PFD to access the remaining countywide sales and use tax. Snohomish County Executive Drewel and the Snohomish County Council forwarded a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 20 letter to the Edmonds PFD Board denying their request; however, -the Board continues its efforts to seek an extension to the deadline including discussions with the Snohomish County Finance Director who attended a PFD Board meeting today. Mr. Clifton explained Everett and Lynnwood have been promised funding for their projects. The Paine Field Flight Center and Edmonds PFD are competing for the remaining funds. Council President Earling inquired about the Board's strategy to get the deadline extended. Terry Vehrs, Edmonds PFD Board Chair, answered the Edmonds PFD will attempt to comply with the December 1, 2001, deadline by submitting an application. He noted Mayor Haakenson also forwarded a letter to Snohomish County Executive Drewel requesting the deadline be extended. Mr. Vehrs explained approval from the Snohomish County Council will be required for the Snohomish County PFD to provide funding for the Paine Field Flight Center project; Edmonds PFD plans to advise the Council of the importance of extending the viability deadline for the Edmonds PFD. Council President Earling inquired whether consideration had been given to Edmonds citizens bringing pressure on the Snohomish County Council. He offered to author a letter on behalf of the Edmonds City Council, meet with Snohomish County officials, etc. John McGibbon, Edmonds PFD Board member, advised a meeting was being scheduled with Mayor Haakenson, Council President Earling, and Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson. Mr. Monroe pointed out the need for the Council's assistance individually as well as collectively to make contact with Snohomish County officials. Councilmember Marin commented a critical component of any project was a hotel. He asked about the risk to the project if a hotel was not provided. Andy Olsen, The Chambers Group, answered their evaluation determined there would be a significant risk without a hotel. Mr. Easton explained without a hotel, the facility could not be marketed to groups outside the area; however, there was potential to utilize the facility by local businesses and groups. Although the facility would be utilized, it would not generate the economic impact and may take business from existing facilities in the area. He summarized a facility could be operated as a local facility in the interim prior to providing a hotel. Ms. Conner advised the Board's next steps included continued research of hotel development as well as a multi- purpose center where a hotel would not be a component initially but possibility in the future. Councilmember Plunkett noted the PFD Board had done a great deal of work. He inquired whether the Board was satisfied with where it was in the schedule. Mr. Vehrs answered the Board felt it was behind schedule and was trying to make quantum leaps to get the study complete and get the Snohomish County PFD viability deadline extended. He noted it was the PFD Board's responsibility to use the .033% sales and use tax to explore every possibility to create a successful special event center for the City. Mr. McGibbon noted the Everett and Lynnwood projects were in planning for 1'/z - 2 years before submitting an application to the Snohomish County PFD; however, the Edmonds PFD was only recently formed. The Board hopes to have something ready by June 2002 if the Snohomish County PFD extends the viability deadline to July 2002. Mr. Monroe commented although City staff has provided a great deal of assistance, the Board has been hindered by the lack of full-time staff. Council President Earling commended the Board for the remarkable work they had done in a short period of time. Ms. Conner commented the schedule was very aggressive. Even if the viability deadline was extended, the PFD must break ground on a facility by January 1, 2003, thus a huge amount of work must be done in a very short period of time. 11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS lic lities Mary Havander, 109 Glen Street, Edmonds, said if the decision is made to continue pursuing a �striet project, she requested a public forum be scheduled where 1) an informed public may ask questions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 21 regarding the proposed regional center and 2) the PFD Board could provide answers. She urged the PFD to schedule a public forum and to publicize the date and time. rightWater AI Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, referred to BrightWater and commented that Treatment Edmonds residents could not vote on King County issues. He urged the Council to attend the December Plant 10 King County Council meeting. He reiterated his request for an estimate on the fire station. Public Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, complimented the PFD Board and Mr. Clifton for the 'iFacilities progress they have made. He urged the Council to have staff extend every extra effort to keep the PFD District on schedule because the project could falter without help. He next referred to the newspaper article on lawsuit re: the lawsuit against Syd Locke regarding the totem pole. He urged the Council to put a stop to this arved Pole endeavor which he felt was in poor taste, not a good venture, not good advertising for Edmonds, and cost a lot of money. He commented the Council should be uncomfortable knowing they have "backed the Mayor's lawsuit." ublic Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, questioned how a public vote, land purchase, conditional acilities use permit for the height, design of a facility, and hiring a builder to construct the facility could be istnct accomplished by January 1, 2003. He next pointed out fees and costs for the lawsuit with Syd Locke total nearly $18,000 as of September. The individual who donated the totem pole in 1997 indicated he awsuit re: arved Pole had not spoken with Mayor Haakenson or anyone else regarding the situation. Mr. Demeroutis alleged there had been false information given to the public and Council regarding this situation. He urged the City to get out of this as cheaply as possible and preserve some integrity for the City. Public Rowena Miller, 8711 182nd SW, Edmonds, referred to the statement in the PFD's presentation that Facilities indicated the preferred approach to development of a facility would be to seek sites or development istrict opportunities where the land may be contributed and other sources of funding area available. She urged the Council to "put the brakes on the PFD." She objected to funding a PFD director, etc. when such tight deadlines exist. If the PFD did proceed, she urged the City to get the public involved. ublic Terry Vehrs, 11023 Totem Pole Lane, Woodway, emphasized all PFD Board meetings were open to acilities the public and public notice has been provided. He noted audience participation has been allowed at istrict each meeting. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comments about "the Mayor's lawsuit," Mayor Haakenson clarified any lawsuit was the City's lawsuit and not the Mayor's. wsurt re: In response to comments regarding the lawsuit, City Attorney Scott Snyder acknowledged the arved Pole expenditure of public funds was an appropriate issue for discussion. He explained the City had expended approximately $20,000; the nature of this lawsuit was that the loser paid. He explained a trial date was set in six weeks and a summary judgment action was pending in two weeks. In terms of whose lawsuit this was, the recommendation being followed through on is from the City's Art Commission regarding property the City is seeking to be returned. He noted 2-3 weeks ago, the City enacted a resolution indicating the Council was willing to look for another way to deal with the carved pole other than destroy it. However, Mr. Locke has not allowed the City to take pictures of the pole to allow the City to take bids from community organizations to consider other options. Further, Mr. Locke has had the ability to roll the pole into City Park and the City has offered to quit. At this point, Mr. Locke has a counterclaim against the City claiming the City has interfered with his business relationships. If the City quits, the money has been spent anyway and nothing was accomplished. If the City proceeds to trial, the City has better than even chances of winning and the City pays nothing. He questioned whether the citizens' issues were with money or priorities. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 22 COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS mance Finance Committee ommittee Council President Earling reported the Finance Committee continued its discussion of financial policies and a series of policies will be advanced to the Council. Councilmember Petso raised a few additional issues and a meeting will be scheduled with Councilmember Petso, Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler and him to clarify her proposed policies. (Public Public Safetv Committee afety Councilmember Petso advised the Committee discussed the renewal of the Animal Control Agreement Committee with the City of Mountlake Terrace. This item was approved on the Consent Agenda. Community Services/ Community Services/Development Services Committee Development Councilmember Orvis referred the Council to the minutes of the meeting. Services Committee 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Earling reminded Councilmembers to provide him a telephone number if they planned to be out of town this weekend. 1�] Councilmember Plunkett expressed his appreciation to those who removed election signs a few days after the election, particularly Syd Locke, Rich Demeroutis and Councilmember Orvis. Lodging Tax Councilmember Petso advised the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee is in need of a committee member ommitt e from the hospitality industry and invited any referrals to be made to the Council President or Mayor. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. RY KENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 20, 2001 Page 23 -� AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5' Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. NOVEMBER 20, 2001 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 November 13, 2001 (C) Approval of claim checks #51930 through #52053 for the week of November 13, 2001, in the amount of $220,655.12 (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Lisa Rynd (Undetermined Amount) (E) Authorization for the Mayor to Sign an Interlocal Agreement to Provide Animal Control Service to the City of Mountlake Terrace (F) Proposed Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Edmonds to change the zoning designation of certain real property located at 820 15tn Street SW, and commonly known as the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, from RS- 20 to Public-P and fixing the time when the same shall become effective (G) Proposed Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Edmonds to change the zoning designation of certain real property located immediately east of 9715 Edmonds Way, File No. R-2001-94, from RM-1.5 to BN and fixing a time when the same shall become effective 3. (10 Min.) Proposed Ordinance relating to Local Improvement Districts Nos. 215 and 216; establishing Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 215/216 and the Consolidated Local Improvement Fund, District No. 215/216; fixing the amount, form, date, interest rates, maturity, and denominations of the Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 215/216 Bonds; providing for the sale and delivery thereof to Seattle -Northwest Securities Corporation of Seattle, Washington; and fixing the interest rate on local improvement district assessment installments Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA November 20, 2001 Page 2 of 2 1 _ ._. . 4. (10 Min.) Annual Report from Prosecuting Attorney Jeffrey Goodwin 5. (10 Min.) Update by Snohomish County Economic Development Council 6. (30 Min.) Closed Record Meeting - Appeal of a Hearing Examiner decision to deny an appeal of a staff Code interpretation of the definition of hedge. The "hedge" is located at 18108 - 881h Avenue West and is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12). (Appellants: Walter and Elena Lee / File No. AP-01 -1 67/AP-01 -112) 7. (30 Min.) Budget Work Session 8. (15 Min.) Public Hearing regarding establishing property tax levies for the Year 2002 (A) Proposed Resolution finding the existence of substantial needs and justifying increasing the maximum lawful property tax levy for the City regular property tax and Emergency Medical Services levies at a rate of 1%. This increase of City regular property taxes over the 2001 levy equates to a rate equal to 1.023% or $167,338. The increase of the City EMS levy over the 2001 levy equates to a rate equal to 1.023% or $35,789. (B) Proposed Ordinance making certain legislative findings, increasing the regular property tax levy for 2002 by 1.023% above the 2001 levy, representing a 1 % increase based on the maximum lawful levy, increasing the EMS levy for 2002 by 1.023% above the 2001 levy, representing a 1% increase based on the maximum lawful levy, levying current taxes of $750,130 for the Public Safety Complex, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. 9. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on the 2002 Budget 10. (60 Min.) Joint Meeting with the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board. Presentation on year 2001 activities, Regional Center Market Demand and Feasibility Study, recommended next steps of the Board, and Board financial status. 11. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 12. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings 13. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 14. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN 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.