Loading...
11/27/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES November 27, 2001 xecutive Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter, the session Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5d' 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 Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Meredith Storey, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder E ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO COUNCILMEMBER DEANNA DAWSON South District Court Judge Stephen J. Dwyer administered the Oath of Office to Deanna Dawson. Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council meeting to a reception in Councilmember Dawson's honor. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Change to Agenda COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO REMOVE FROM THE TABLE THE 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. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ADD THE ORDINANCE TO THE AGENDA AS ITEM 3A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 1 1 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Marin requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Orvis requested F be removed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Payroll (B) APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS 0656 THROUGH 0752 Direct FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 2001, IN THE Deposits AMOUNT OF $791,218.26. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL FINAL CHECK LIST FOR 2001 d Checks FIRE HOLIDAY BUY-BACK CHECKS 0566 THROUGH #3597 IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,818. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL FINAL CHECK LIST FOR 2001 POLICE Deed of HOLIDAY BUY-BACK CHECKS #3598 THROUGH #3655 IN THE AMOUNT OF Right— $98,609.87. Marina Beach Park (C) APPROVAL OF "DEED OF RIGHT" ON THE MARINA BEACH PARK ACQUISITION Io d# 3376 DC (E) ORDINANCE NO. 3376 ENACTING SECTION 20.91.030 CONTINUANCES AS AN 91.030 INTERIM ZONING REGULATION ntinuances Item D: Proposed Ordinance Amending the Provisions of Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.5 Related to Miscellaneous Charees in Order to Amend Section 3.50.020, Charees — Insufficient Funds and Other Returned Checks Councilmember Marin expressed concern that people in the community on fixed incomes or already in an extreme situation would be impacted by the proposed change and he did not want the City to be unable to use discretion in applying a fee of this type. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO REMOVE THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN AND SUBSTITUTE THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED BY CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SNYDER THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING AT THE END OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH IN SECTION 1, "NOR TO PROHIBIT THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR FROM WAIVING SUCH A CHARGE FOR PERSONS QUALIFYING AS LOW INCOME CITIZENS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 7.30.070." City Attorney Scott Snyder explained he discussed this with Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde and Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler whose departments are most affected by this ordinance. He reminded that the City has a low income utility reduction program for citizens who rd# 3375 qualify. CC 3.50.020 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda item approved is as follows: Charges - sufficient Funds and (D) ORDINANCE NO. 3375 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE Vs CHAPTER 3.5 RELATED TO MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES IN ORDER TO AMEND SECTION 3.50.020, CHARGES — INSUFFICIENT FUNDS AND OTHER RETURNED CHECKS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 2 Item F: Proposed Resolution Correcting Legislative Findings on Resolution No. 1012 and Requesting Access to the Carved Pole for the Purpose of Photographing the Pole. Councilmember Orvis advised he pulled this item to vote against it. es# 1013 COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, Correct FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS Resolution OPPOSED. The agenda item approved is as follows: o. 1012 d Request Access to (F) RESOLUTION NO. 1013 CORRECTING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS ON RESOLUTION arved Pole NO. 1012 AND REQUESTING ACCESS TO THE CARVED POLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PHOTOGRAPHING THE POLE 3. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS (LID) NOS. 215 AND 216; ESTABLISHING CONSOLIDATED LID NO. 215/216 AND THE CONSOLIDATED LID FUND. DISTRICT NO. 215/216: FIXING THE AMOUNT. FORM. DATE. INTEREST RATES. LID 215/216 MATURITY, AND DENOMINATIONS OF THE CONSOLIDATED LID NO. 215/216 BONDS; Bonds PROVIDING FOR THE SALE AND DELIVERY THEREOF TO SEATTLE-NORTHWEST SECURITIES CORPORATION OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, AND FIXING THE INTEREST RATE ON LID ASSESSMENT INSTALLMENTS Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler explained earlier today the pricing on the sale of $2.2 million in LID bonds was completed for the Perrinville and North Perrinville Sanitary Sewer Local Improvement Districts. Lee Voorhees, Foster Pepper & Shefelman, presented Ordinance No. 3377, the bond ordinance authorizing the sale of bonds. He explained this ordinance created a consolidated Local Improvement District (LID) for permanent financing for LID 215 and 216. He recalled in late 1999 prior to the approval of 1-695, the Council approved assessments for these LIDs. The projects are now complete and the assessments can be pledged to the payment of the bonds. He explained the only change to the draft ordinance distributed in October was the pricing of the bonds accomplished earlier today. He explained the ordinance would authorize all actions necessary to issue, sell and deliver the bonds to the purchasers. He highlighted Section 3, which lists the rate for bonds at various estimated redemption dates, explaining the bonds would mature on December 1, 2018 unless called sooner. Section 15 approves the purchase contract that will be presented by Mr. Shelley. Mr. Voorhees explained he examined the contract and found it to be in suitable form for the Council's favorable consideration. Section 16 and 17 ensure compliance with FCC regulations, and Section 19 establishes the interest rates for the assessments in the LIDs. The interest rate is set at 5.85%, approximately 'h% over the true interest cost of the bonds, the customary margin for fixing that rate. He recommended Council approval of the ordinance. Rob Shelley, Seattle Northwest Securities Corp., explained the City's bond issue was priced this morning and approximately 80% of the bonds were placed with investors during a three-hour period at very attractive rates. He distributed the bond sale result packet for Consolidated LID 215 and 216 and the purchase contract. He explained one of the goals for this transaction was to achieve as aggressive tax exempt interest rates as possible in the marketplace and a true interest cost (TIC) of 5.27% was achieved. Another goal was to ensure the funds were in the LID fund in time to retire the interim financing put in place in 1999 that must be retired by December 14, 2001. The bond issue will close on December 11 and the funds will be available by the required date for retirement. Mr. Shelley referred to a description of market conditions prevailing in the municipal bond market, noting declining interest rates have been favorable for the municipal bond market. He stated it was a very attractive time to be selling bonds, much better than if the long term financing were done in 1999. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 3 He referred to a comparable bond issue ifiR iWia sold a few weeks ago that was outlined in the Council packet. He also referred to the description of the underwriter's discount which was their compensation for the transaction. Responding to Council President Earling's comments, Mr. Shelley agreed September 11 disrupted the market, particularly because the bond market had a great deal of its primary players centered around the World Trade Center. This also created a "flight to quality" as municipal bonds are seen as a safe haven in times of uncertainty, thus the demand for this type of bond has increased. Council President Earling asked whether the credit markets were influenced by the passage of I-747. Mr. Shelley answered most are in a "wait and see" mode. The credit analysts that look at these types of bonds are waiting to see what municipalities do to live within the constraints of I-747. He noted there are several outstanding bond issues that are backed by taxes that are limited under I-747 and those are the types of bonds that will be watched very closely. He noted it would be more difficult to issue those types of bonds in the future and they would be under much more scrutiny. Council President Earling expressed concern that while the Council wanted to limit property taxes, voters often are not aware of secondary impacts of issues such as I-747 such as (a) whether a bond issue was issued in a timely fashion, and (b) the likelihood that it would cost citizens more because of the higher interest rate. Mr. Shelley agreed I-747 could reduce the amount of cushion a municipality had to pay debt service on a bond issue. The more limited resources there are to pay debt service, the less credible a bond was and could result in downgrading. He summarized the rating agencies are taking this very seriously and will be watching for any deterioration. Bob Yeasting, Yeasting & Associates, referred to the report he distributed to Councilmembers, explaining interest rates today were in approximately the middle of the range over the past year, a good time to borrow. He noted the underwriters did a very good job marketing this issue. He referred to a comparison on recent bond sales, comparing Edmonds LID bond sale with an Energy Northwest bond sale. He recommended the City accept the purchase offer of Seattle Northwest Securities for the bonds. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3377. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows: rd# 3377 — ORDINANCE NO. 3377 RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 215 AND LID s 5/21 ond6 216; ESTABLISHING CONSOLIDATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 215/216 AND THE CONSOLIDATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND, DISTRICT NO. 215/216; FIXING THE AMOUNT, FORM, DATE INTEREST RATES, MATURITY, AND DENOMINA- TIONS 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. ezone 820 A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF isth st. SW EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY (Cemetery) 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 Council President Earling explained this ordinance was presented to the Council last week. He recalled at that time, the City Attorney informed the Council that an affirmative vote of four or more Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 4 Councilmembers was required to pass the ordinance. He removed the item from the table tonight as all Councilmembers were present. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was a regional facility but other cemeteries were not. Planning Manager Rob Chave responded cemeteries were specifically mentioned in the definition of regional public facility and were not mentioned as a local public facility. Councilmember Petso inquired whether approving the Public-P zoning for this property would require approval of Public-P zone for the cemetery adjacent to Woodway Meadows and Forest Glen. Mr. Chave answered they could continue as a non -conforming use but could not expand under their current zoning. Councilmember Petso recalled when the amendments were being discussed, she had concerns about regional public facilities. She was told at that time that regional public facilities were big things like BrightWater but these two cemeteries were actually small things. She also recalled when the amendments were being reviewed, the focus was to ensure churches, schools and the cemetery could continue to expand without the need to rezone the property to public. Mr. Chave agreed much of the discussion was directed toward churches and schools. Cemeteries serve a wide area regardless of their size and therefore fit the definition of a regional public facility. Because Councilmembers did not have definitions before them and because this document was only provided to the Council this evening, leaving no time to review it, Councilmember Petso recommended this item be tabled. She said her primary concern was that if the rezone was approved, and it was later determined an error was made, it may be awkward to correct the mistake. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO TABLE THIS ITEM. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS IN FAVOR AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MILLER, DAWSON, AND MARIN OPPOSED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3378. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MILLER, DAWSON, AND MARIN IN FAVOR, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO AND ORVIS OPPOSED. The ordinance approved is as follows: rd# 3378 ORDINANCE NO. 3378 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE Rezone 820 15 St.t. SWW OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING (Cemetery) DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 820 15"t 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. Edmonds 4. UPDATE BY THE EDMONDS ALLIANCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Alliance for Economic Jack Oharah, President, Edmonds Community College, explained he was involved in the Edmonds Development Alliance for Economic Development due to his interest in working in the community they serve and because economic development was a good place for the Community College to be involved. He referred to the Procedural Workplan Year II included in the Council packet which provided an overview of the work plan and economic development. He explained the Alliance was in place to promote economic development in Edmonds including developing an economic base, even more important in light of 1-747. One of the ways the Alliance is attempting to do this is to increase density in and around downtown Edmonds to develop a core population that can support a comprehensive retail and service base and generate taxes. He concluded the joint efforts of the Alliance provided an opportunity to discuss the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 5 issues of economic development and reach a� comprehensive view of what economic development activities should be encouraged in the City. David Peterson, Executive Director, Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development, explained the goal of the Alliance is to build and support a strong economic base and accompanying tax base. He noted recent elections make a self sufficient, local tax base even more important. Mr. Peterson highlighted several of the program areas in the Alliance's workplan, describing the Alliance's role, the application and value to the community for each: Economic Development Model, Parking Analysis, Downtown Visual Enhancements, Liaison for Regional Projects, Visioning and Supporting Tourism. Mr. Peterson agreed with Councilmember Plunkett that retaining existing businesses and attracting new businesses were both important to economic development. He noted retaining existing businesses helped attract new businesses and attracting new businesses helped retain existing businesses. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Economic Development Model would assist the Council when making decisions by illustrating how the policy might affect economic development. Mr. Peterson agreed it would be an element for consideration in a policy decision. Councilmember Plunkett observed this was a new tool for the community. Councilmember Orvis commented the Community Services/Development Services Committee meeting included a comment that many of the aspects of the HyettPalma Study had yet to be implemented. He asked whether the Alliance would be formulating the policy changes for Council decision. Mr. Peterson explained there were at least 500 recommendations in the HyettPalma. A policy determination was made by the Alliance Board to look at the approximately 12 issues they could work on, with the understanding the Chamber of Commerce, City, Port, State, private property owners, etc. would work on others. The Alliance is trying to work on issues that will be catalysts for accomplishing other recommendations. Mr. Oharah advised the Alliance reviews and reformulates its workplan annually using the HyettPalma as the foundation study. Council President Earling suggested the Alliance provide the Council a periodic report on the progress the Alliance is making. He noted that although the Alliance works quietly behind the scenes, the public is critical of the return for the amount of money the City and the Port are spending. He asked how the Alliance could make their work more apparent to the public. Mr. Peterson indicated he would be happy to provide a periodic report. Mikael Hattrup, Program Coordinator, Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development, described several methods they are utilizing to get more communication to the public including a monthly newsletter that was initiated three months ago, a monthly column in the Edmonds Beacon for the past three months, and consideration is being given to establishing a website that could be linked to the City, Port, and Chamber of Commerce websites. Mr. Oharah said the workplan is also distributed to anyone who inquires about the Alliance activities. Pubic 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ESTABLISHING PROPERTY TAX LEVIES Baring FOR THE YEAR 2002 Establishing Property Tax Levies Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the continued public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to his earlier suggestion that salaries be frozen. He noted the Council had the ability to institute a property tax increase of 1%-8% based on recapture. He explained that three times the 8% increase would equate to the cost of the library annexation, consequently, the $1 million the City saved in shifting the library funding was equal to approximately a 16% tax increase. He suggested the 16% the City saved via library annexation was ample. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 6 commented the average homeowner who will pay the 24% increase for the library, the increase on EMS, 1%-3% on property taxes, and increased utility taxes due to increased utility costs equated to nearly a 30% property tax increase for Edmonds homeowners plus tax increases due to increased value. He urged the City to "hold the line" and reduce costs rather than increasing income. Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, questioned why the City could not balance the budget, pointing out the availability of the $1.1 million previously used to fund the library contract and the bonds for Frances Anderson Center rewiring, road resurfacing and library roof repairs. He referred to staff salary increases and the purchase of the Marina Beach property, questioning why there were funds available for those items but now the Council was considering an 8% property tax increase. He cited the additional $750,000 appropriated for the fire station on 196t' and the cost overruns at the Public Safety complex as examples of why the Council was considering an 8% tax recapture. He said the Council was taxing residents out of their houses. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Balling Way, Edmonds, noted the Friends of the Library, who supported annexation, were told the funds would be placed in the General Fund to address the coming shortfall. He acknowledged the events of September 11 resulted in an economic downturn but said a 1% increase should be enough. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Orvis asked whether staff had an opportunity to review the rules regarding recapture. Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler answered the information she provided last week was accurate. She noted the ability to recapture was not only for this year. The City has approximately $700,000 in banked capacity; if the Council chose not to access all of that this year, it would be available in future years. For example, the Council could do 3% this year, 3% next year, etc. until the levy reached the maximum allowable. Councilmember Orvis confirmed the Council could recapture 3% this year. Ms. Hetzler agreed. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the Puget Sound inflation rate. Ms. Hetzler advised it was 3.5%. Councilmember Miller inquired about the value of each 1% of property tax. Ms. Hetzler answered for the regular property tax, it was slightly over $70,000. Councilmember Dawson asked where the language in the ordinance regarding emergent need and unanticipated came from. Ms. Hetzler answered under Referendum 747, what was most often referred to was substantial unmet needs. The resolution was revised to use that terminology rather than emergent needs. Councilmember Dawson asked what reason for the recapture was cited in the ordinance. Ms. Hetzler answered the City lost substantial revenues in the form of Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes (MVET) and sales tax equalization and also anticipated that economically sensitive revenues would decline due to the downturn in the economy. Councilmember Dawson expressed concern that the budget as drafted for 2002 did not show a decline in sales tax revenue, only that it was flat. Ms. Hetzler answered the 2002 budget had been amended to show a decline in sales tax revenue. Councilmember Plunkett asked how long Ms. Hetzler had been employed by the City. She answered approximately three years. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the City had always had a balanced budget. Ms. Hetzler answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Mayor's forecasts showed a balanced budget for the next 4-5 years. Ms. Hetzler responded the scenarios developed recently show a balanced budget until 2006. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council increased property taxes for the library annexation. Ms. Hetzler answered that was a public vote. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 7 Councilmember Plunkett confirmed the citizens of Edmonds voted to increase their property taxes to annex into the library. Councilmember Orvis referred to increases in valuation and asked if every house in Edmonds increased by 10% in value, whether the City's property tax increased. Ms. Hetzler answered no, the assessed valuations in the City could double and the City would not collect additional revenue unless the Council enacted the maximum lawful increase allowed. This was a 6% increase but was now limited to 1%. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Councilmember Miller recalled at the last Council workshop, he pointed out the proposals in the preliminary budget represented a 5.9% increase in the proposed 2002 budget. The Council will again discuss the budget at a budget workshop on Saturday, December 1. He noted one of the most important additions to the budget was the Battalion Chiefs. As a property owner and taxpayer in the City, he enjoyed the services and amenities of the City and had made decision as a Councilmember with those interests in mind. He pointed out the 1% the City was limited to under I-747 was not sufficient to provide the services that he enjoyed, the Council enjoyed, and other community members enjoyed. He encouraged the Council to consider a higher property tax rate such as 3 to 3.5%. He explained the cost of the Battalion Chiefs as $182,000 represented approximately a 2.5% increase in property tax levy and the $70,000 from an additional 1% would provide funds for other valuable programs included in the 2002 budget that he preferred be retained. Council President Earling pointed out the 8.8% banked capacity indicated the City over the past several years had chosen not to increase property taxes the maximum allowable of 6% per year. He acknowledged the City recaptured some of its banked capacity in a previous year, pointing out the City did not increase property taxes last year in view of the library annexation. He pointed out the annual cost increase of Medic 7 and the Fire Department, in excess of $400,000, provided substantial need for the 3.5% increase in property tax. He encouraged the Council to consider a 3.5% increase, commenting a community that defeated I-747 would be respectful of that decision. Councilmember Petso noted although the Council did not approve an increase in property taxes last year, this year was when citizens would see the increase in taxes due to the library annexation. She encouraged the Council to recognize that some of the residents who would be impacted by the tax increase were people on fixed incomes, recently laid -off from Boeing, and others who were not enjoying peak earnings. She questioned setting the property tax levy before finalizing the budget, noting the Council could have finalized the budget before determining the revenue required. She acknowledged this approach was difficult this year due to budget issues. She noted the City's finances look horrible; the City has tapped into the reserve accounts below comfortable levels, the City has spent down the remaining cash balances below historic levels and even with the proposed 3.5% increase, the City's spending was $193,000 over income in 2002. She expressed discomfort with the pattern of expenditures exceeding revenues, and preferred some effort be made to spend less than the City's income. Further, she felt a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens not to let the City go bankrupt any sooner than absolutely necessary, which would require more than a 3.5% tax increase or budget cuts. If the Council adopted a 3.5% tax increase, she urged them to attempt to control spending and make the additional $193,000 budget cuts to balance expenses with income in 2002. Mayor Haakenson requested staff address Councilmember Petso's comment that the City had reduced reserves below comfortable levels. Ms. Hetzler responded the City's emergency financial reserve was approximately 7% of General Fund expenditures; the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends a fund balance of approximately 5% be maintained. She concluded the City was currently and had been for many years in excess of the recommendation by the GFOA. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 8 Mayor Haakenson asked Ms. Hetzler whether, as the City's Finance Director with many financial awards, she was comfortable with the City's emergency reserve level. Ms. Hetzler answered she was comfortable. Council President Earling inquired about the impact of a 3.5% tax increase on the property taxes of a typical $250,000 house. Ms. Hetzler advised it would be $26 per year. Council President Earling noted this equated to slightly over $2 per month. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO ADOPT A 3.5% INCREASE. Councilmember Marin explained he acquired charts from the Snohomish County Assessor's office that illustrated the assessment rates for various cities in Snohomish County. Edmonds was in the mid -range and there were a number of cities at a higher level. He supported the 3.5% increase, stating he was impressed. with Mayor Haakenson's approach not to look at 1-2 years but look at a 5-year forecast. He pointed out if the Council did not take action now, the City would be in a difficult position in 4-6 years. Councilmember Plunkett noted 5-7 years ago, the Council automatically passed 6% tax increases, the legal limit. The City's budget in those days was growing at 9-11% per year although it was balanced on a yearly basis. He noted the portion of Edmonds resident's tax bill that the Council was responsible for was the lowest rate of any south Snohomish County city. Increases in the budget in recent years have been 5-6%, slightly over the rate of inflation. He explained the City had reduced growth in expenditures from 9-11% to 5-6%, effectively cutting the growth rate in half. He emphasized the goal was a balanced budget over a five year period. He concluded a five-year balanced budget, a reduction in the rate of growth, a reduction in the percentage of property tax increase and this year a property tax rate equal to inflation, was responsible. He stated he has always tried to vote for property tax increases at or below the level of inflation and could therefore support the proposed 3.5% property tax increase. Councilmember Orvis indicated his support for the motion. He was generally pleased with the preliminary budget, which was a pro -public safety budget and kept the five-year outlook on property tax increases at the rate of inflation. Although he disagreed with some line items, he was pleased with the majority of the budget and was comfortable with increasing property taxes at the rate of inflation. Councilmember Dawson shared the community's concerns regarding the library annexation vote. She suggested tax increases not be judged by how much goes into the City's General Fund but rather how much comes out of citizen's pockets. Based on that, there had been a very substantial tax increase last year. She questioned how the extra $1 million freed up by the library annexation as well as the $200,000 for the library bond that ended last year were being spent. She concurred with Councilmember Petso's suggestion that there be corresponding cuts in spending. She acknowledged Edmonds was impacted more by the loss of MVET revenues and she supported the funding of Battalion Chiefs. She questioned why the budget proposal developed before I-747 was passed included a 3% tax increase and now a 3.5% tax increase has been proposed, particularly when the City can recapture banked capacity next year as well. She preferred a 3% property tax increase. Councilmember Miller responded to Councilmember Dawson's question regarding 3% versus 3.5%, explaining the Mayor's preliminary budget proposed the Battalion Chief program begin six months into the year. The 3.5% property tax increase would fund the Battalion Chief program for the full 12 months. A vote was not taken on the motion as Ms. Hetzler distributed a resolution and two ordinances, explaining the Assessor's office preferred the Council adopt one ordinance identifying the dollar amount of the increase and the percentage increase, and a separate ordinance identifying the total dollar amount Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 9 of the levy including new construction. The resolution declares the substantial unmet need to exceed Implicit Price Deflator (IPD). She noted City Attorney Scott Snyder had reviewed the ordinances. Mayor Haakenson read the proposed Resolution No. 1014 Res#1014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, FINDING Finding THE EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTL4L NEEDS AND JUSTIFYING INCREASING THE PROPERTY TAX Substantial Needs and LEVY FOR THE CITY REGULAR PROPERTY TAX AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE LEVIES Justifying FOR 2002 AT A RATE OF 3.5% OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THIS INCREASE OF CITY REGULAR Increasing PROPERTY TAXES OVER THE 2001 LEVY EQUATES TO A RATE EQUAL TO 3.5% OF $251,276 roperty axes THE INCREASE OF THE CITY EMS LEVY OVER THE 2001 LEVY EQUATES TO A RATE EQUATE TO 3.5% OR $53, 872 WHEREAS, Chapter 84.55 RCW requires cities in excess of 10,000 in population, following public hearing and by separate resolution to find and determine the existence of a substantial need in order to justify tax increases above the Implicit Price Deflator, and WHEREAS, the City Council enters these findings following public hearing prior to raising tax rates, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council hereby determines in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 84.55 RCW that unmet substantial needs exist which justify a 3.5% increase of the 2002 levy for the City's regular and EMS levies. The increase of its regular property tax levy over 2001 equals 3.5% or $251,276 and the increase for the Emergency Medical Services levy equals 3.5% or $53,872 based on the following substantial needs for budget year 2002: The City has lost substantial revenues due to the elimination of motor vehicle excise tax and sales tax equalization funds. In addition, the City's sales tax revenues are declining in response to the regional economic decline. Section 2: This resolution has been enacted by a vote of the majority plus one of the City Council. It is the City Council's intent, by enacting this resolution, to reserve to itself the ability to levy in this, or any further budget cycle pursuant to RCW 84.55.015 and 84.55.092, the full levy amount permitted under Referendum 47. Councilmember Petso asked why the Battalion Chiefs program was not listed as the substantial need rather than the loss of MVET, which occurred a few years ago. Ms. Hetzler answered the Battalion Chief program could be listed; the City could identify any number of substantial needs in this document. She noted the City was not required to identify the substantial need in the resolution. She explained the loss of the WET and the loss of sales tax equalization was the justification provided in 1999 when the previous recapture was done and still represents a substantial unmet need. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1014. Council President Earling suggested the wording in the resolution describing the substantial unmet need be revised to read, "The City has lost substantial revenues due to the elimination of motor vehicle excise tax, afid sales tax equalization funds, and public safety needs." This amendment was acceptable to Councilmember Marin and Councilmember Miller and Mr. Snyder advised it was appropriate. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3379. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 10 rd# 3379 Legislative Findings, ORDINANCE NO. 3379 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, MAKING CERTAIN Increasing LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS, INCREASING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATE FOR 2002, AND PropertyTax Levy FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. vy COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3380. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows: rd3380 e sing ORDINANCE NO. 3380 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS WASHINGTON TO INCREASE THE Property Tax PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATE AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME Levy - EFFECTIVE. 002 Budget 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2002 BUDGET Public Hearing Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the continued public hearing. Michael Cade, Vice President, Snohomish County Economic Development Council (SCEDC), referred to the presentation made last week by the President of the SCEDC and thanked the City for their continued support of the organization. He explained the efforts of the SCEDC were directed at creating quality jobs and quality communities, retaining jobs and businesses. He noted Snohomish County is home to 23% of the biotech companies in Washington and 26% of the employee market. He stressed the SCEDC could have a positive impact on the local community. He -noted as the economy changes, the need to develop interest and investment in Snohomish County increases. He commended the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development on their efforts regarding business retention. Jack Bevan,19210 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, congratulated the City on recognition by the Washington Municipal Treasury Association regarding the City's investment policies but cautioned the City soon may not have funds to invest. He urged the Council to make cuts in the budget. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, noted the City had an excellent investment in the Police Department, Fire Department, and aid cars that provided a valuable service to the community. He cited other items in the budget that did not benefit the community such as paying department heads $100,000 per year, which he felt was too high and had increased too rapidly. He suggested these salaries be reduced 10% or at least frozen, noting there was a recession in the State and this area had the highest unemployment rate. He referred to the $20,000 the City has expended on the lawsuit regarding the totem pole and suggested the Council work out problems with citizens rather than filing a lawsuit. He noted recent changes to the Community Development Code were "fuzzy and vague" and may create a lot of business for the City Attorney. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Balling Way, Edmonds, suggested a park levy to fund park items. Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, noted the library annexation was not an initiative by the people, it was placed on the ballot by the Council. He objected to Mayor Haakenson and Council President Earling talking and/or passing notes during the budget hearing and urged them to make any comments on the record. He noted the $20,000 for the lawsuit regarding the totem pole would have paid 2/3 of the $32,000 for the reserve firefighters. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to his suggestion to cap/freeze staff salaries and cited increases in the police chief salary from $88,434 in 2000, $97,560 in 2001, and $107,100 in 2002 and increases in the Parks and Recreation Director's salary from $87,434 in 2000, $97,650 in 2001 and $106,480 in 2002. He noted these all represented 10% increases. He questioned whether employees should be provided 10% increases when the City's revenues were flat. He noted the City may have to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 11 I layoff employees and/or reduce non -essential services, citing theT'Recycling Coordinator as an example (whose salary increased from $45,000 in 2000, $47,000 in 2001 and $50,000 in 2002). Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing on the 2002 budget and remanded the matter to Council. Council President Earling advised a budget workshop was scheduled for Saturday, December 1. He suggested Councilmembers who submitted additions/reductions advise whether they wished to have any of them withdrawn and/or had other suggestions for additions/reductions. He proposed the Saturday workshop address each of the suggestions Councilmembers have submitted and final action on the budget be taken on December 11 when all Councilmembers were present. Councilmember Petso explained one of her requests was to delete the Public Works Wash Station and possibly transfer some of those funds from the Enterprise Fund into Emergency Reserves. She had not received a response from staff whether the transfer was possible. Another of her suggestions was to remove the Mayor's discretionary 5% salary increases. She noted this was one of the reasons salaries jumped so dramatically. She explained the City's L5 policy provided staff competitive, market rate wage increase, then a 3.5% cost of living increase is provided, and the Mayor has discretion to add another 5% merit/longevity increase. She suggested this be suspended or reduced to a number consistent with the current economic times and what was typical for a longevity increase such as 1 %. She acknowledged that although those increases were discretionary, if they were included in the budget, and it was not provided as an increase to an employee, it may be used for another purpose. Council President Earling clarified his intent was to determine whether Councilmembers had any issues they would like to have withdrawn. He noted the issues Councilmember Petso raised would be discussed at the budget workshop or on December 11. Councilmember Petso advised she would withdraw her suggestion to eliminate the two patrol positions following Chief Stem's explanation that one of the positions has been filled and his indication that the other position was important for public safety. Councilmember Orvis noted Councilmember Miller's proposal to begin the Battalion Chief program January 1 should also be included in the discussion. Council President Earling advised the budget workshop on Saturday, December 1 would be held in Council Chambers and would be recorded and televised. Mayor Haakenson clarified it was not a public hearing but the meeting was open to the public. Council President Earling explained the intent of the budget workshop was to discuss the budget and reach consensus on some issues but the action on the 2002 budget would be taken at the December 11 Council meeting. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Public 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY Baring on DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.35 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) AND Proposed TITLE 21 (DEFINITIONS), PROVIDING FOR NEW PURPOSES, STANDARDS, CRITERIA, Amendments o ECDC AND A REVISED REVIEW PROCESS FOR APPROVING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL 0.35 - DEVELOPMENTS (File No. CDC-2000-132) Planned Residential Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained there had been approximately two years of review on this issue Development by the Planning Board and four meetings with the City Council, this being the second public hearing. He provided a brief history, explaining the Growth Management Act (GMA) required review and adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan which lead to the Council's considerationof three build -out scenarios for the City. In 1995, the City adopted a new Comprehensive Plan that identified a growth scenario entitled "designed infill" as the preferred strategy. He explained the goal of designed infill was the desire to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 12 encourage infill development consistent with design characteristics of the neighborhood in which the development was proposed. He explained this concept was selected due to its ability to meet State growth targets as well as limiting the need to rezone areas of the City. During the Comprehensive Plan process, Planned Residential Developments (PRD) were identified as a key tool for implementing the designed infill concept. It was also noted in order for PRDs to be a key tool, the PRD chapter should be modified to better address current circumstances. He noted the City processed approximately 40 PRDs since that concept was included into the Code in the early 1970s; however, in the past ten years, the rate of PRD applications has fallen approximately 50%. Many of the reasons for this decline were traceable to provisions in the current PRD chapter. For example, the existing code limits PRDs to projects with five or more lots/units. This was a difficulty because few parcels that could produce five or more lots remain undeveloped. The proposed amendments eliminate this limitation. Another reason for the decline in PRD applications is the number of hearings/meetings required to review a PRD prior to preliminary and final approval. Under the proposed amendment, one meeting and one public hearing would be required for preliminary approval. Mr. Bullock explained when the Planning Board began reviewing the PRD code, they had three major goals, first was the flow of the ordinance. Under the existing regulations, staff and applicants must refer to several sections of the code, and it is a very confusing and difficult code to work with. The goal of the new ordinance was a logical, sequential flow that was more understandable to applicants, the general public, and staff. The second focus was content, clarifying the code so that it was easier to understand for applicants, the general public, and staff. For example, what types of projects qualify for a PRD, what criterion must be met for the PRD to be approved, and the process. Mr. Bullock noted there was some confusion in the existing code regarding what type of projects qualify for a PRD; the proposal would allow any project with multiple lots or units to qualify for a PRD. The third goal of the Planning Board was to clarify and simplify the PRD process. In the past, the applicant was required to go to the Architectural Design Board (ADB), then to the Hearing Examiner and finally to the City Council to obtain preliminary approval. Mr. Bullock pointed out prior to Regulatory Reform, these meetings were all public hearings. Following Regulatory Reform, only one public hearing is allowed, thus the proposal consolidates the process into a public meeting with the ADB to review design issues and to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing and decision on the preliminary PRD approval. Once the applicant has met the conditions of the preliminary approval, they return to the Council for final approval, which would follow the process for the underlying permit that was applied for with the PRD. He noted PRDs were typically applied for along with a short plat, a formal plat, or multifamily commercial development. Mr. Bullock reviewed significant changes in the proposed ordinance: Density — under the current ordinance density is determined by the size of the lot, less the area dedicated to roads and dividing the remaining land by the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zoning. Mr. Bullock explained this has lead to applicants seeking to minimize their road system as much as possible to obtain more space for determining the number of lots. Under the proposed ordinance, the number of units would be the same regardless of the road configuration. Density is determined by the gross area of the lot divided by the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zoning. He noted in PRDs where the number of lots are four or fewer, the number would be rounded down to the closest number; in PRDs with five or more lots, the number of lots would be rounded to the closest number. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 13 ■ Attached Units for Lots with a Significant Amount of Critical Areas — a significant number of the remaining lots have associated critical areas. To encourage applicants to site units as far from critical areas as possible, the proposal would allow the same number of units but allow a certain number to be attached if that was necessary to attain the number of lots they would be allowed. For a lot with at least 25% encumbered by a critical area, attached units could be proposed. Mr. Bullock noted no attached units could have more than two units per building. ■ Criteria for Modifying Standards — in the current ordinance, setbacks, lot area or lot coverage can only be modified if variance criteria are met. Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board wanted to make the determining factor a design -related issue rather than a hardship. ■ Criteria for Approving a PRD — criteria in the current ordinance is not well defined. The proposed criteria provide more direction for applicants, the general public, and staff. ■ Single Family Design Criteria — Mr. Bullock recalled at the last work session, the Council requested the Planning Board review the design criteria. The Planning Board reviewed and unanimously supported the criteria with minor text changes as indicated. Mr. Bullock explained the remainder of the PRD ordinance outlines the application requirements, the preliminary and final approval processes, and the procedures to propose and approve changes to approved PRDs. He noted the most significant change in this section was the Hearing Examiner would hold a public hearing and make a decision regarding the preliminary approval. The final approval would follow the process for the underlying permit associated with the PRD. Mr. Bullock reviewed staff s recommended action to review the draft ordinance, take public testimony and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for adoption. Councilmember Petso asked why the City wanted to encourage PRDs on lots without critical areas. Mr. Bullock answered there were a number of unique circumstances that would justify consideration and ultimately approval of a PRD. He cited the Orchard PRD as an example, a development located on the southeast corner of 9"' Avenue N and Puget Drive. Although there were no critical areas associated with the property, it had a significant feature due to the location at an entrance to the City. The applicant dedicated a significant portion of their project to enhancing the entrance and ultimately it was a benefit to the development and to the community. Councilmember Petso commented under the proposed ordinance, if there was nothing to be gained, a developer could still do a PRD. Mr. Bullock agreed a developer could propose a PRD. Councilmember Petso observed the City could not say no to the PRD as long as they met the basic requirements even if there was no public benefit to allowing a PRD. Mr. Bullock agreed, noting this was also true for a subdivision. However, in the case of a PRD, the public would realize a greater benefit due to the higher level of design and greater public involvement. Councilmember Petso noted since the road area was not counted, the public would also get more homes on a property than they would otherwise. Mr. Bullock agreed there was potential for that but a limited amount. Councilmember Miller commended staff on the clear and concise presentation. He inquired about staff's comment regarding design issue versus hardship for a PRD. Mr. Bullock explained the current ordinance was directed at hardship situations and any request for a reduction in lot area, setbacks, lot coverage although allowed under the current ordinance, required an applicant meet variance criteria. He explained variance criteria were hardship based rather than design based. Under the proposed ordinance, if a reduction in lot size, setback, or lot coverage was requested, it should be reviewed as a design -related issue and for compatibility with the neighbor and the development rather than hardship. Councilmember Marin inquired why a builder would propose a PRD rather than a plat. Mr. Bullock answered some builders may prefer a PRD over a plat and others may prefer a plat over a PRD. He noted Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 14 a developer with more design background may be more willing to spend the extra time/money to go through the PRD process to obtain a better, more marketable development. Another developer who was less comfortable with design issues, may prefer a formal or short plat process. Councilmember Marin asked whether it was easier to do a plat. Mr. Bullock answered yes, explaining there were no design criteria in a plat with regard to development of the structures and there was no design criteria for determining lot lines. Under a standard subdivision (formal or short plat), all that is required for approval is to meet the minimum lot width and minimum lot size. However, a much higher design is required in the PRD process. Councilmember Marin noted the PRD process would allow staff to have more control over the look and fit of the housing in the neighborhood. Mr. Bullock agreed, noting this was one of the reasons it was identified as a preferred tool for designed infill. Councilmember Marin noted there was benefit to the community to having the PRD process as a tool. City Attorney Scott Snyder commented subdivision of the lots would still be required by a PRD. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the benefit to the City of allowing a PRD of less than five lots when there was no critical area. Mr. Bullock cited the example of an established neighborhood with larger lot sizes and established charter of home style; via a PRD process, the City may be able to require the design of the homes/lots reflect the existing character in the neighborhood which could not be done in a typical subdivision. Councilmember Dawson noted the only reason an applicant would do a two -unit PRD would be to fit three units on a parcel. Mr. Bullock agreed, noting there may be other factors. Councilmember Dawson inquired what the benefit to the City was. Mr. Bullock said it was unlikely an applicant would pursue a PRD for a small lot without critical area because the short plat process was so simple, straightforward as compared to the PRD process. He noted the benefit to the City of a PRD was a development that more closely reflected the character of the neighborhood. Councilmember Dawson suggested modifying the proposal to allow PRDs only for five or more units or lots with critical areas. Mr. Bullock explained the Comprehensive Plan identified a build -out scenario for the City of designed infill to encourage infill development that would reflect the value and character of the community. The PRD ordinance, as proposed, could be used to accomplish that. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained another issue in short plats is access, configuring lots so that the access does not encroach on an existing home for example. He said this may require modification or demolition of an existing house to subdivide, which is counter to the Comprehensive Plan goal of encouraging retention of existing housing. Councilmember Dawson observed the benefit would be that on a large lot with an older home, the PRD would make it easier to "jam new houses around it." Mr. Chave explained the PRD would provide the flexibility to tailor the particular development to the property such as make one of the lots smaller and the other lot larger. The existing PRD ordinance does not provide this flexibility due to the variance criteria that must be met to obtain a reduction in the lot size, setback, etc. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM AND THE MEETING 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council received a letter from Samuel Anderson, Executive Officer, Master Builders Association, who expressed his support for the proposed amendments to the Planned Residential Development Code. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 15 Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented the proposed amendments would increase density, make duplexes possible, and potentially create view blockage. He pointed out land use actions could not be done for the sole purpose of profit, noting there appeared to be opportunity for disparate treatment. He expressed concern with the rounding. He referred to a subdivision occurring in his neighborhood and expressed concern that a "monstrosity" could result from a PRD on the property. He summarized the City's Community Development Code had been in place for 20 years and was developed with a great deal of public input. He questioned whether there had been that level of public input with this proposal and expressed concern with the quick approval process for the PRD ordinance. Eric Sundquist, 22903 86th Place W, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance, noting the version of the ordinance presented at the previous public hearing was much better. Since that time, single family design criteria has been added, most of which he felt was bad and contradictory to other sections of the ordinance. He challenged the Council to locate homes in Edmonds that looked like what was proposed in the single family design criteria. The Planning Department indicated the goal of the proposed ordinance was for infill development to look like the existing neighborhood, a concept he supported. Another goal of the ordinance was flexibility, however, the single family design criteria did not provide any flexibility. The criteria would require applicants develop new home designs before they knew if the PRD would be approved. He summarized this would scare developers from doing PRDs and suggested the single family design criteria be modified or eliminated. For example, placing garages behind houses would increase impervious surface requiring bigger detention facilities. Terry Hanna, 6920 172"d Street SW, Edmonds, observed the preamble to the ordinance discussed preserving existing property values, which the proposed ordinance would not do. He said attached housing, zero lot lines, roof-to-roof/eave-to-eave construction was a transfer of value from the existing homeowner to the developer, particularly in his situation. He recommended the provision that allowed attached housing be removed. He referred to pictures in the ordinance, surmising that they would not be included in the code. He recommended the periphery of PRDs be increased so that existing vegetation could be retained to provide screening for the dense housing that would devalue surrounding residences. Eliminating the road area would result in increased density and suggested anaverage roadway be deducted from the lot area. Allowing housing to be clustered to avoid critical areas would also increase density. He referred to staff s comment regarding high quality design consistent with existing homes, noting this was very subjective. He summarized density adjacent to homes on larger lots would depreciate the value of the existing housing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, explained rather than revise the ordinance, staff redesigned it with an entirely different philosophy. Previously, the PRD was related to unusual circumstances or a clear benefit to the public; today it was a developer incentive plan. He objected to the ability to group houses so close together that it created a wall of units. He concluded duplexes were viewed as multiple units by residents in a single-family zone and were principally wrong. Ted Coleman, 20104 8151 Avenue W, Edmonds, advised the design criteria was not clear and was open to interpretation. He encouraged the Council to consider the design criteria in Section .060 which required garages to be setback 10-feet from the front of the house, emphasizing this was not a design common to the northwest. He was in favor of the PRD ordinance with the exception of Section .060. He recommended builders be involved in the development of the PRD ordinance. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, commented duplexes were a big issue to citizens. He recommended the city be divided into sections and individual meetings held. Bob Vick, General Manager, Sundquist Homes, 7127 196th Street, Lynnwood, spoke generally in favor of the PRD ordinance, noting he participated in Lynnwood's efforts to revise their PRD ordinance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 16 He pointed out the changes in the demographics of the population, and the fact not everyone wants the typical 8,000 square foot lots that were developed in the1960s. He cited Mountlake Terrace's PRD parameters that required the project be better than a typical subdivision. He cited examples of 4,000 square foot lots surrounded by a community park maintained by the homeowners and 5,000 square foot lots that border large tracts of open space. He concluded the PRD ordinance provided the tools to accommodate a certain market. He suggested a meeting with interested parties and the Planning Department be held to review some of the design guidelines as some were very restrictive. Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, noted the ordinance stated if a PRD was four lots or less, the number would be rounded down to the nearest whole number and five lots or more would be rounded to the nearest whole number. He noted if rounding up occurred, the common space should be increased. He cited an example near Alderwood Mall nicknamed Sardine Alley where 3,500 square foot lots were developed with a common area at one end. He noted there were varying lot sizes in the city to regulate lot size. He remarked the proposed ordinance was so open to interpretation that developers may take advantage of it to the detriment of the community. Hearing no further comments, Mayor Haakenson closed the audience portion of the public hearing. Mr. Bullock responded to audience comments regarding the criteria is too specific or not specific enough. He explained the Planning Board attempted to strike a balance between specificity and allowing flexibility. He clarified the design criteria are preceded by "should" and thus were not regulations or standards. He explained the intent was to establish criteria the ADB could use for reviewing the PRD. He noted the PRD chapter was the only tool to propose innovative design in the city. In response to rounding the number of units, Mr. Bullock explained for PRDs of four units or less, the number of units would be rounded down. He acknowledged the road was not included in the calculation but there was benefit to the city from the design review aspect of a PRD. Mr. Snyder clarified PRDs of five or more units would be rounded to the nearest whole number (6.41 = 6 and 6.51 = 7). Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to respond to the comment that this had been handled too quickly. Mr. Bullock clarified the PRD ordinance has been under review for over two years and has included a number of public hearing and associated public notices. Councilmember Plunkett noted the three builders indicated more input was required. Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board has attempted to reach a balance between being specific enough to ensure protection for neighbors and still provide flexibility that developers need to product a quality product. In response comments regarding the placement of the garage, Councilmember Marin referred to his experience in home construction, noting of the five designs he built, only two had garages that were set back. He suggested the use of "modulated" or other wording rather than "diminished" in the criteria if the intent was not to have a flat front. Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board discussed how to reduce garagescapes and enhance the residential feel of a neighborhood. He reiterated all criteria were "should" and were not standards or regulations which provided the ADB flexibility. He said the criteria could be revised to "offset garage front" rather than "visually diminished." Mr. Snyder referred to the comment that the pictures would not be included in the ordinance, explaining the City was moving toward including pictorial examples in the code and all pictures shown in the code would be included. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 17 Council President Earling suggested staff develop language to address the above comments regarding garages. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Snyder suggested paragraph A.4.b of Section 20.35.060 be deleted, recognizing the garage could not be forward of the house due to setbacks as well as restrictions provided by lot width and other criteria that suggested the orientation of the house not be to the garage. He suggested the easiest method would be to delete that criteria and review it carefully. Councilmember Miller recognized the concern expressed by the builders during the public hearing regarding the design criteria, observing the Master Builders Association has expressed support for the proposed ordinance. He emphasized the criteria was advisory as indicated by "should" versus "shall." He supported the ordinance as it would allow builders to continue using creative discretion. He expressed concern with the Council involving itself in the minutia of wording. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Petso emphasized the importance of neighborhood protection, recognizing staff explained why there could be some benefit to the neighborhood. However, she questioned how a poor outcome could be prevented. She referred to the inclusion of road area in the calculation of the number of units in the PRD, noting the extra units may outweigh any possible benefit a reasonable street configuration could have provided to the surrounding neighborhood. She commented clustering is not always a good idea and the City must ensure the adoption of this ordinance results in good clustering. She noted limiting the units to single family detached homes would make it more difficult to create a wall in front of a view and limiting PRDs to five or more lots or parcels with a critical area may achieve public benefit. She recognized demographic changes in the city but said one of the areas that would be impacted the most by this change was the north end of the city where there were slopes, large lots and views. She was unwilling to pass an ordinance that allowed clustering, small lots sizes and potentially view obstruction. She suggested staff at least eliminate the opportunity for duplexes in the PRD ordinance and to include a street allowance in the calculation. Councilmember Dawson shared many of Councilmember Petso's concerns and indicated she could not support the ordinance unless the provision for allowing duplexes and a PRD of four units or less without a critical area were removed. She questioned whether it was a valid use of Council's time to place the ordinance on the Consent Agenda when at least two Councilmembers were opposed to it. Council President Earling remarked when this ordinance was first presented to the Council, he was opposed to it because there were too many unresolved issues, however, the inclusion of design characteristics addressed many of those issues. He said staff had done such a good job developing design criteria that builders thought it was bad and others who did not want any change thought it was bad because it raised issues regarding the potential design. He acknowledged the city was experiencing changing demographics which this concept allowed the City to approach creatively. Council President Earling noted that although the City has done fairly well meeting the first GMA housing allocation, the City would soon receive another allocation. Therefore, the City needs to identify creative ways to make the community more livable. Regarding the comment that a duplex would create a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 18 wall, he pointed out there were many homes built today with broad fronts that created the effect of a wall. Creative design would allow flexibility to free up open space. He thanked staff for the work done on this ordinance. He requested staff return on a periodic basis with a report on the application of the ordinance. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND DAWSON OPPOSED. In accordance with Mr. Snyder's recommendation, it was agreed paragraph A.4.b of Section 20.35.060 (regarding garages) would be deleted from the ordinance. 8. . AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1 aWsuit re: Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, referred to the Mayor's press release explaining the facts arved Pole of the totem pole lawsuit, and pointed out the donor of the pole was not contacted. Regarding the liability of the lead paint, he said the Art Commission's February 1, 1999 minutes stated the pole's lead paint was not to be considered a hazardous material and the pole could be used for other purposes if sealed with a polyurethane coating. The minutes state one of the only ways to get the particles airborne would be to cut it up which is what staff did. Mr. Demeroutis noted staff members also took pieces of the pole. Regarding the comment that Mr. Locke used the pole as a campaign prop, Mr. Demeroutis said local journals did an article on Mr. Locke but the pole was not used in his campaign. He noted Councilmember Marin used the Edmonds Fire Department gear in one of his brochures. Regarding the comment that a judge in a pretrial hearing directed the citizen to return the pole to the City as rightful owner, Mr. Demeroutis said Mr. Locke indicated the judge wanted him to post a $1,000 cash bond. Regarding the principle in filing a lawsuit, Mr. Demeroutis recalled when the City sued a group of citizens over an initiative to lift the EMS transport fee. He concluded the lawsuit was a petty thing the City was doing to Mr. Locke. He questioned how the decision to file the lawsuit was made. rightWater Allen Clark, 806 Dayton Street, Edmonds, described problems with siting BrightWater at the Unocal Treatment site. He was told there would a 15-foot diameter pipeline that would be laid via tunnel. He explained the Plant tunnel would be 10-12 miles long with branch tunnels. He pointed out tunneling was a 24-hour process, either a conveyor would be running 24-hours a day or 10,000-15,000 truck loads would be needed to haul the soil away. He explained the Edmonds treatment plant compresses and burns solids, creating approximately one truckload of ash per week. He explained the proposed BrightWater treatment plant would have digesters that would require removal of approximately 10-15 truckloads of refuse per day that would be trucked to eastern Washington. He noted operation of the digesters created odors. He recommended King County locate the plant inland near the largest source of sewage, and pipe clean water to outfalls. He noted some of the reused water also could be piped into creeks and rivers to maintain a constant flow and result in a smaller pipeline to the outfall. He urged the City to do everything possible to discourage BrightWater from locating in Edmonds. wsuit re: I Jack Bevan, 19210 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented the totem pole lawsuit made the City the arved Pole laughing stock of the state and nation. He thanked Councilmember Miller for the picture, commenting if the City could negotiate a religious icon and make it acceptable, why couldn't it obtain a hold harmless agreement from Mr. Locke. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation to Assistant Police Chief Al Compaan for the service he provided to him, and also thanked Mayor Haakenson for his assistance. He said the $10,000 the City provides to Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development was wasted money >m as Edmonds was already a nice town. He noted the presentation did not include any mention of quality rdinance of life. He was disappointed the Council was moving forward with approving the PRD ordinance in view of the comments from the public. He suggested revising the existing ordinance one step at a time. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 19 1 rtWater Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, noted the group opposing the BrightWater ent treatment plant met with Mayor Haakenson and King County Executive Sims this morning. He urged the Council to attend the December 10 King County Council meeting. i Shamsich Mohajeri, 21005 841h Avenue W #B, Edmonds, read a petition signed by her neighbors at etition re: tearing 21103 A & B, 21105 A & B, and 21107 A & B 84`h Avenue West. The petition requested the City attend 11 Tees to the following matter due to health, safety and security concerns: ordering the abutting property owner to clear the trees which diminish daylight into homes and create safety concerns. Mayor Haakenson requested Ms. Mohajeri give the petition to Development Services Director Duane Bowman who would contact her tomorrow. BrightWater Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, said she had the pleasure of joining the group in Treatment front of City Hall to visit with King County Executive Ron Sims regarding BrightWater. Due to the Plant continued lack of information, she visited the library where she found information in section 363.7284 regarding how to approach the media, a marine outfall siting study, a marine geological investigation study, etc. She noted the information changes from 2000 to 2001. Although an earlier speaker indicated there would be tunneling, the documentation indicates soils are not stable and there will be no tunneling. She emphasized there are differences between what BrightWater representatives say and what was written. She pointed out if the treatment plant was located in south Edmonds, the outfall could be in north Edmonds. She urged the City to seek clarification. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, asked who represented the City on the BrightWater Siting Advisory Committee. He asked how the decision was made to file a lawsuit against Syd Locke. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS tWater Mayor Haakenson reported three members of the Say No to BrightWater Committee and he met with rl'a King County Executive Sims this morning. Executive Sims also met with several protestors before the meeting to answer their questions. Mayor Haakenson asked Executive Sims if he would be willing to remove Edmonds as a possible site for BrightWater but Executive Sims politely declined. Executive Sims was a guest speaker at a Rotary Club luncheon where he was asked the same question and his answer was his recommendation to the King County Council was to do an EIS study on the two sites he previously recommended, Edmonds and Hwy. 9. The Site Advisory Committee, which Councilmember Dawson has participated on, recommended two sites be added to the EIS study but clearly Executive Sims has no inclination to do so. Mayor Haakenson advised Executive Sims was not bound by any recommendations made by the Siting Advisory Committee and the Siting Advisory Committee had no power. He suggested citizens contact King County Councilmembers prior to December 10 to inform them the citizens of Edmonds would like to have Edmonds removed from the site consideration list. 10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Due to the late hour, Council President Earling suggested delaying Council reports/updates until next week. xecused bsence COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM THE OCTOBER 23 AND 30, NOVEMBER 5, 13, AND 20 COUNCIL MEETINGS. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED. W ater Council President Earling reiterated the Council had been cautioned by the City Attorney not to take sides with regard to BrightWater because of the need to maintain their standing as Councilmembers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 20 should issues come to the Council for consideration. He noted the Council's position was made very clear in the resolution passed a few weeks ago. Councilmembers Miller, Petso, Orvis, Marin and Plunkett welcomed Councilmember Dawson. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ,�._�irs�.sa. � • �1'LR.4Y. ARY KENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK 1 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 27, 2001 Page 21 AGENDA -3' EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. NOVEMBER 27, 2001 6:30 P.M. - Executive Session Regarding a Real Estate Matter (Jury Room, Public safety Complex) 7:00 P.M. - Call to Order Flag Salute Administration of Oath of Office to Councilmember Deanna Dawson Recess for Reception (20 Minutes) 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #3656 through #3752 for the period November 1 through November 15, 2001, in the amount of $791,218.26. Approval of Payroll Final Check List for 2001 Fire Holiday Buy -Back checks #3566 through #3597 in the amount of $64,818. Approval of Payroll Final Check List for 2001 Police Holiday Buy -Back checks #3598 through #3655 in the amount of $98,609.87. (C) Approval of "Deed of Right" on the Marina Beach Park acquisition (D) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.5 related to miscellaneous charges in order to amend Section 3.50.020, Charges - Insufficient funds and other returned checks (E) Proposed Ordinance enacting Section 20.91.030 Continuances as an interim zoning regulation (F) Proposed Resolution correcting legislative findings on Resolution No. 1012 and requesting access to the carved pole for the purpose of photographing the pole Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA November 27, 2001 Page 2 of 2 3. (10 Min.) Proposed Ordinance relating to Local Improvement Districts (LID) Nos. 215 and 216; establishing Consolidated LID No. 215/216 and the Consolidated LID Fund, District No. 215/216; fixing the amount, form, date, interest rates, maturity, and denominations of the Consolidated LID No. 215/216 Bonds; providing for . the saleand and delivery thereof to Seattle -Northwest Securities Corporation of Seattle, Washington; and fixing the interest rate on LID assessment installments. 4. (10 Min.) Update by the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development 5. (30 Min.) Continued Public Hearing regarding establishing property tax levies for the Year 2002 6. (30 Min.) Continued Public Hearing on the 2002 Budget 7. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.35 (Planned Residential Development) and Title 21 (Definitions), providing for new purposes, standards, criteria, and a revised review process for approving Planned Residential Developments (File No. CDC- 2000-132) 8. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports/updates on outside committee/board meetings 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.