01/26/2010 City CouncilJanuary 26, 2010
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director
Carl Nelson, Chief Information Officer
Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge
John Ferebee, Court Administrator
Susan Ivanjack, Court Clerk
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Haakenson relayed Council President Bernheim's request to move Item 4 after Item 6.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER.
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Plunkett requested Item G be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #116585 THROUGH #116697 DATED JANUARY 21,
2010 FOR $437,010.24. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#49027 THROUGH #49058 FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1 THROUGH JANUARY
15, 2010 FOR $662,656.90.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LANDON B.
REYNOLDS ($3,276.16).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 1
E. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
— JANUARY, 2010.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RECYCLING GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR 2010 -2011.
ITEM G: SENIOR CENTER RECREATIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR 2010 FOR THE
SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the process for the Senior Center Board to review and approve the
agreement. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh responded in the past the Executive Director has
signed the contract and forwarded it to the City for approval or the Senior Center Board has reviewed and
approved the contract. Councilmember Plunkett concluded that following the Council's approval of the
agreement, it would be forwarded to the Senior Center for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE ITEM G: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. T
3. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Peterson commented the City was fortunate to have Kristiana Johnson volunteer to serve
on the Planning Board. He noted that Mayor Haakenson's previous recommendation for a Planning
Board Member, Lois Jean Broadway, was also an excellent candidate, perhaps one of the best qualified
candidates. The Council, however, chose to reject the Mayor's recommendation to appoint Ms.
Broadway to the Board. He expressed concern that the Council did not have any public debate regarding
why they chose not to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Ms. Broadway.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF KRISTIANA JOHNSON TO THE
PLANNING BOARD.
Council President Bernheim commented that his not confirming Mayor Haakenson's recommendation to
appoint Ms. Broadway was prompted by his great admiration of Ms. Johnson. He worked with her for
several years on the Transportation Committee; she is a highly committed, trained planner and an
independent thinker.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. MUNICIPAL COURT 2009 ANNUAL REPORT.
Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair congratulated and welcomed Councilmembers Fraley- Monillas and
Buckshnis. He acknowledged Court Administrator Joan Ferebee who has worked for Edmonds since
1993 and prepared the data for this report. He also introduced Court Clerk Susan Ivanjack who has
worked for Edmonds for 22 years.
Judge Fair demonstrated the video hearing system that the court began using this past Thursday. The
system includes a large screen that allows all parties to see the defendant in custody at the Snohomish
County Jail and his /her attorney, the judge, and the prosecutor. Staff continues to work on the sound
quality as the Council Chambers has a multi - directional mike; his preference would be to have four -track
sound. He explained the system cost approximately $15,000; however, the cost to the city was zero.
When his position was made an elected position, the State provided funds that are placed in a Court
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 2
Improvement Account. The City has received approximately $30,000 since 2006. To date approximately
$21,000 has been expended from this account for the video hearing program, to pour concrete steps and
install handrails outside the back entrance, provide a keyless security entry for the backdoor and
chambers, reconfigure the probation office for increased safety by routing probationers through an outside
door rather than the main entrance to the Court's administrative office, offset payments for an update to
the security alarm system used in the public safety facility, wireless headsets for staff, and panic buttons
for clerks and the judge to summon the police in an emergency.
Judge Fair explained prior to the installation of the video hearing system, he had one in- custody calendar
per week on Wednesdays that was limited to ten people due to space and staffing limitations. As a result,
some defendants were held in custody for 2 -3 weeks awaiting their opportunity to attend an in- custody
calendar. With the video hearing system, the maximum wait should be 3 -4 days as up to 20 people per
week can be seen on in- custody matters.
He described the process of transporting inmates from the Snohomish County Jail to the courthouse every
Wednesday which requires a security detail of two Edmonds off -duty Police Officers on overtime.
Although nothing has happened in Edmonds during transport or while inmates are in the court, there are
obvious security and liability issues during transport as well as at the court. For example, following in-
custody hearings in Edmonds, the custodial staff has found knives and drug paraphernalia in the men's
restroom. In the past, the City paid the weekly cost of approximately 1 I hours of off -duty police officer
overtime. With the installation of the video hearing system, the City pays the line rate for two jail guards
for approximately 6 -8 hours /week. He anticipated there may be additional costs for the public defender
and the prosecuting attorney as he had added an in- custody calendar each week. Costs will also be
reduced by defendants being seen sooner and likely released sooner.
Judge Fair reviewed 2009 filings, explaining filings were up slightly over 2008. He reviewed case filings
by year for traffic violations, traffic infractions, parking, DUI, criminal traffic and criminal non - traffic,
commenting there were no significant changes in case filings by category. He reviewed monthly
revenues for 2005 to 2009, advising there was only a slight increase in gross revenue from 2008 to 2009.
Net revenues after expenses were $140,682, an increase of approximately 8% over 2008. He assured
public safety would never be a money maker as these numbers did not include the public defender,
prosecutor, jail, etc.
Judge Fair reviewed expenses by category, identifying expenses that were over /under budget. He
highlighted savings in staffing due to not replacing a part-time staff member, furloughs and two new
employees hired at a lower rate. He reviewed passport revenue 2002 to 2009, advising applications and
2009 revenues were down approximately $20,000. He reviewed the cost, profit and jail savings from
electronic home monitoring (EHM). He explained EHM administered through the court was down
because the system was land -line based and only worked with certain communication companies,
requiring the court to contract for EHM. Overall EHM, alcohol bracelet monitoring systems and
community service are very helpful and save the City the cost of numerous jail days.
He summarized the court continues to do more with less. He anticipated as capacity continued to
increase, additional staff would be necessary.
Councilmember Wilson asked Judge Fair his opinion about his compensation being reviewed by the
Citizens Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials. Judge Fair answered it did not concern him. In
order for the City to be eligible for State funds, he was compensated at 90% of a full -time District Court
Judge based on his caseload which is currently 0.55 of a full caseload. The latest AOC statistics indicate
his caseload should be 0.90 which he felt was somewhat inflated. He anticipated there may be changes
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 3
made to this program due to the State's budget crisis. He planned to testify at the Legislature tomorrow
regarding a bill to make all municipal judge positions elected.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out 2009 filings increased approximately 2500 over 2005 and have
leveled out recently. He asked the reason for that increase. Judge Fair recalled vacant police officer
positions have been filled since 2005 and Traffic and Street Crime Units were created. Councilmember
Plunkett inquired whether there had been any changes in State law that would account for the difference.
Judge Fair answered in 2003 Driving While License Suspended was declared unconstitutional. The
legislature reenacted it in 2004 and the number of tickets increased the following 1 -2 years. He advised
DWLS3 was the most common criminal traffic citation in the court.
Councilmember Plunkett congratulated Judge Fair on winning the election.
6. PUBLIC DEFENDER ANNUAL REPORT.
Public Defender James Feldman advised his office included 7 attorneys, 2.5 of whom are dedicated to
Edmonds matters. He did not anticipate another in- custody hearing would significantly affect their
monetary compensation. Their compensation has not changed for the past 20 years; the total amount of
compensation has increased due to increased volume. He echoed Judge Fair's comments that one of the
advantages of the video hearing system was it allowed cases to be heard sooner, thereby reducing jail
time.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if there had been any change in the type of defendants in recent years. He
also asked what type of offenses Mr. Feldman typically defended. Mr. Feldman answered Driving While
License Suspended (DWLS) was the most common. If the cities could convince the legislature to make
DWLS a civil traffic infraction instead of a criminal case, it would have a significant impact on the
budget. Approximately 40 -50% of the people they represent are due to licensing issues. He explained
there were three degrees of DWLS; first degree the State takes a person's license for at least 7 years;
second degree the State takes away the person's license for less than 7 years; and third degree is
something other than the first two, the majority of which is failure to pay a traffic ticket.
Failure to pay a traffic ticket results in a warrant, once the person comes to court, the court fines the
person, and as a result there is no deterrent for DWLS. Cities pay a great deal for jail, public defender,
and prosecutor costs because a person has not paid a ticket. He recalled Edmonds tried to decriminalize
DWLS in the mid -1980s and the legislature required the City to follow the State mandate and handle it as
a criminal offense. He did not anticipate any major changes in the law that would impact the number of
municipal court case filings.
4. UPDATE ON THE 2010 BUDGET (MAYOR HAAKENSON).
Mayor Haakenson distributed a five -year budget projection. He wanted the Council to have this
information in time for their annual retreat to allow them to strategize solutions to revenue shortfalls. The
City's revenue streams continue to fall; revenues for 2010 have been adjusted downward by nearly $1.1
million compared to the projections provided to the Council on October 16, 2009. Nearly half of the
reduction was due to reductions in property taxes and building permit fees. Expenses have also been
reduced by $500,000 for 2010 from the projections provided to the Council in October 2009.
Because the Council had just been provided the five year budget projections, he suggested a more in-
depth discussion of the budget occur at the retreat. He highlighted several items in the 2010 budget: Yost
Pool is fully funded, Parks seasonal labor is fully funded, there are no furloughs and several positions will
be left vacant until further notice. Two key areas as efforts begin to build the 2011 -2012 budget are
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 4
revenues and labor costs. Revenues are at significantly lower levels than the City has become
accustomed to over the past five years. The economy has taken a toil on the City's revenues which is
likely to continue. With an improved economy, he expected revenues would begin to grow again but
when that would happen was unknown and staff would continue to forecast conservatively until that time.
Even with revenue growth back to pre- recession levels, the City will not have sufficient resources to
provide all the services citizens have come to expect. The City clearly needs more non - property tax
revenues into the General Fund. He recognized the step the Council took toward that goal via the creation
of the Economic Development Commission (EDC). The EDC has completed the first step in a process
designed to increase revenues for the long term. The EDC's report put the ball in the Council's court;
they are seeking direction from the Council. He was hopeful at their retreat the Council would validate
the EDC's work to -date and empower them to move forward with additional tasks.
The second opportunity afforded the Council during the 2011 -2012 budget planning process is
negotiating labor contracts this year. The 5 year projections show labor costs growing at about 3.5% per
year, a number that is only a placeholder. Based on current cost of living numbers, that number may be
high; a 1% reduction to 2.5% would increase ending cash by approximately $175,000 /year. The real
opportunity for the Council will be the negotiation of labor costs that will drive labor costs for the next
three years and have a huge impact on the bottom line. He suggested at the retreat the Council determine
a negotiation strategy for each of the bargaining units.
The short term financial picture looks better due to the contract with Fire District I and past budget cuts
and furloughs. The long term outlook remains in doubt. The model shows the City's ending cash balance
will slip into deficit in 2013. Another retreat topic for the Council is to discuss whether to place a levy on
the ballot in 2011 or 2012. A levy could be part of an overall strategic plan that incorporates the work of
the EDC, an effective negotiation policy and the levy; a three pronged effort at future financial stability
for the City.
The 5 -year projection indicates the City is in good shape for the balance of 2010. Over the course of
2010, the City will spend down ending cash by nearly $1 million and still be solvent through 2011. In
2012, the City is in the same position as 2009. He summarized the contract with Fire District 1
accomplished the short -term financial goals and bought the City time. The Council must use that time
wisely to design a roadmap for the City's financial future. He recommended the Council use the
upcoming retreat as a starting point for that effort.
Councilmember Wilson asked why the projected revenue under Intergovernmental. Services Charges was
approximately $1 million less than the budget. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines referred to Footnote 3
which states the number reflects the termination of the fire service contract with Woodway and
Esperance. Councilmember Wilson inquired why Miscellaneous Revenues increased. Mr. Hines referred
to Footnote 2 which states the increase is due to the sale of the Fire Department rolling stock.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested reference to the footnote be inserted next to the appropriate line
items.
Councilmember Wilson suggested prior to the retreat staff provide data regarding how labor costs have
changed in the past 6 -8 years. He inquired whether the 3% increase in labor costs included COLA and
step increases. He asked for data regarding labor costs if all the current positions remain filled and COLA
and step increases are provided and the amount of the COLA and step increases over the past 6 -8 years.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the City's employees are approximately 80% topped out with regard to
step increases. He offered to provide the last two 3 -year labor contract settlements by bargaining unit and
the unfilled positions.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 5
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas referred to grant revenue for 2009, noting there was a large reduction in
2010 between the budget and projection. She assumed this was because staff had not yet determined what
grants they would apply for. Mr. Hines agreed some grants had not yet been applied for; some grants
received last year have not been fully expended. At the time of the next budget amendment, he would ask
the Council for authority to spend those grants which would increase the projection. Councilmember
Fraley - Monillas asked for an example of grants. Mr. Hines agreed to provide an inventory of the grants.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mayor Haakenson advised contracts to be negotiated include Teamsters,
SEIU, Police Support and Police. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many people those unions
represented. Mayor Haakenson answered approximately 80% of the City's employees or approximately
190 -200.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the actuals were as of January 20, 2010. Mr. Hines answered the
City was still paying 2009 bills in January; the month was typically not closed until the 13th day of the
next month. The final month of the fiscal year will be closed approximately the 201h day of the month to
ensure all the previous year's expenditures are included. Mayor Haakenson advised at the time of the
next update, the starting point would be January 1, 2010. Mr. Hines agreed. He explained the numbers
for December 31, 2009 will not be finalized until the State audit is complete in March.
Councilmember Plunkett offered to email his questions to Mr. Hines in preparation for discussion at the
retreat.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether the labor line item under expenses by function included
benefits. Mr. Hines answered it did.
7. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CITY
COUNCIL CAMPAIGNS AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 1.99 OF THE EDMONDS CITY
CODE.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the proposed ordinance would apply to City Council as well as Mayoral
campaigns.
Council President Bernheim explained he had previously proposed to the Council that a limit be
established on local City Council and Mayoral campaigns. His proposed ordinance would establish a
$750 cap on individual contributions per election. This would apply to cash as well as in -kind campaign
contributions. The enforcement mechanism would be the way campaign contributions are reported to the
Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) which would allow any citizen to learn whether the cap was being
exceeded. If a person illegally contributed an amount over the cap such as a $1000 to a campaign without
reporting it, it would be a PDC violation. As a result, the enforcement of the proposed limitation on
campaign contributions would be cost free to the City. The proposed cap included in -kind contributions
to prevent a person from, for example, contributing $5000 in yard signs to a campaign. The proposed cap
did not include the equivalent value of volunteer services. The proposal also does not place a limit on the
amount a candidate could contribute to their own campaign.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the proposed ordinance references a limit per election and includes a
definition of election cycle. The definition of an election cycle includes the general and primary election.
He observed the limit Council President Bernheim proposed applied to the election cycle. Council
President Bernheim clarified his proposal was for the limit to apply to a candidate's race for office, from
the beginning to the end, regardless of how many elections were in that time period. Councilmember
Plunkett summarized the limit Council President Bernheim proposed was not per election, the limit was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 6
per election cycle. Council President Bernheim agreed his proposed limit of $750 would apply to both
the primary and general campaigns.
Councilmember Plunkett advised a limit could not be placed on a candidate's own personal contributions.
The Supreme Court has determined that constitutes free expression and cannot be limited. He preferred a
$250 cap, noting $750 was not really a cap. For example, he raised approximately $32,000 in his last
campaign; under a $750 cap, he anticipated he could raise $30,000. If the goal was to make campaigns
fairer, the cap needed to be more realistic.
Councilmember Wilson agreed some cap on campaign contributions was appropriate. He preferred to
adopt the PDC's disclosure standards which are applied by the State of $850 per election. That process is
in place and is the number one standard in the United States. To Council President Bernheim's assertion .
that this would be a no cost proposal, Councilmember Wilson anticipated there would be a cost. For
example, enforcement of the City of Seattle $600 per election cycle limit required the creation of an
enforcement agency because the PDC is not tasked with enforcing cities' laws, only the State law. If the
City adopted the PDC law, the PDC would have enforcement authority. In the example cited by Council
President Bernheim where a candidate reported a contribution over the $750 cap, the public would learn
of the contribution and it would be contrary to the code but there was no enforcement mechanism.
Councilmember Wilson anticipated a limit on contributions would increase the power of those who are
independently wealthy and can contribute to their own campaigns. The Supreme Court also allows a
corporate or union to contribute any amount. The lower the limit on individual campaign contributions,
the less likely the City would have diverse membership on the Council or candidate voices that stood up
against corporate or union unencumbered contributions. Although he supported some type of limit, he
cautioned against giving power to people or entities with unlimited resources at the expense of candidates.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented the proposed cap was a good starting point but was "smoke
and mirrors" regarding campaign finance reform. In order to have campaign finance reform, there must
be a limit on the total amount a candidate can spend, such as $10,000 for the primary and $10,000 for the
general. She summarized that would represent real campaign finance reform and would put everyone on
an equal playing field. When candidates self - finance or are provided in -kind donations of various
services, they can double the amount raised by some candidates and results in people who do not want to
run for election. She recalled during the interviews for the Council vacancy, several people indicated they
did not run for the position due to the amount of money they would be required to raise. Edmonds is one
of the highest cities in the State with regard to the amount required to run a campaign.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform. He
anticipated placing a limit on the total amount a candidate could raise would be unconstitutional. He
agreed the more limits placed on individual campaign contributions, the more power a wealthy individual
would have. If a specific dollar limit were placed on campaign contributions, the amount would need to
be revisited periodically. He preferred to utilize the PDC's existing mechanism, noting the Washington
PDC was one of the most respected bodies in the United States with regard to tracking campaign
contributions and ensuring it is an open and fair process.
Councilmember Peterson noted any limit on a campaign contribution could be viewed as arbitrary
whether it was $250 or $750 or $1000. If a limit were established, he wanted to ensure it accomplished
the goal of more fair elections, and not just to make people feel better. Further, the Supreme Court's
decision regarding contributions by unions and corporations placed individuals in a disadvantage. While
it was doubtful a group of businesses or unions would funnel a great deal of money into a campaign in
Edmonds, if a limit were imposed, they would have a greater ability to contribute than would a grassroots
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 7
collection of individuals. He supported allowing people to donate to candidates and causes they believed
in.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had a very grassroots campaign and had only one $500
donation. People in Edmonds talk and if someone "bought" a campaign, the people would know about it.
She supported establishing a limit on campaign contributions, preferring a Council campaign be about
issues and the money should be secondary. She concluded establishing a limit was not just "smoke and
mirrors," it was necessary. She assured if someone bought their campaign, it would be in the newspaper.
Councilmember Orvis spoke in support of campaign finance reform with limits on campaign
contributions. He supported a limit of $250 per election but was willing to accept a slightly higher limit
or restructuring the limit to cover the election cycle.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out a $250 limit per person would be $500 per household. He was
interested in learning whether a limit on the total amount spent on a campaign was possible. He pointed
out the legislature utilized the PDC limit; it cost $100,000 or more to be elected to the State Legislature
which he did not view as campaign reform. With regard to a person funding their own campaign, he
preferred that over a person accepting campaign contributions of $1000 -$3000 from unions, corporations
or individuals. He anticipated unions and /or corporations in Edmonds would not get involved in
campaigns unless a candidate via a third party asked. He concluded a $250 per person /$500 per
household limit on campaign contributions would be fair and allow more people to participate. He
preferred a $250 per person /$500 per household limit over the PDC $850 limit, noting any limit would be
better than the current unlimited campaign contribution.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas was not aware that the PDC had a limit on City Council or Legislative
campaign contributions other than a $1500 limit on contributions for House members. She disagreed the
PDC had an $850 limit on campaign contributions, noting if that were true nearly all Councilmembers
have violated that limit. She reiterated her support for establishing a limit on the cash and in -kind amount
a candidate could spend during their campaign.
Council President Bernheim advised it was unconstitutional to place a cap on the amount a candidate
spends on their campaign.
Public Comment
David Dwyer, Edmonds, suggested Councilmembers ask themselves what problem they were solving; in
his opinion the problem the proposed ordinance would solve was incumbents losing an election. The
ordinance protects incumbents and wealthy individuals. Incumbents already have more name familiarity
than a challenger and have the ability to raise money from many sources. Wealthy individuals have the
ability to self - finance their campaigns and do not rely on contributions. The ordinance reduces the ability
for citizens to donate to the campaign of the candidate of their choice. The proposed ordinance is not a
progressive measure and does not promote competition for elected office.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he was most concerned with past contributions and how they
affected the City Council's decision making. He questioned how large contributions from Al Dykes
affected the Council's decisions on upcoming redevelopment. He questioned whether Councilmembers
who received large contributions from certain individuals would be asked to recuse themselves from the
vote. He concluded the public knew which Councilmembers received large contributions and expected a
certain performance based on whether they were an unbiased vote or a possible suspect bias vote.
Student Representative Marmion referred to Council President Bernheim's statement that the proposed
ordinance would prevent an in -kind donation of $5000 worth of signs. He questions whether a separate
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 8
organization could be formed that would allow people to donate whatever amount they wanted and for
that group to unofficially run a candidate's campaign. Council President Bernheim responded in his
proposal, every entity had a contribution limit.
Councilmember Wilson agreed every entity would have a limit on the amount they could contribute, but
there were no limits on contributions that could be made to outside groups. An outside group could
accept any amount of money and do whatever they wanted as long as it was done in an unofficial way and
there was no direct connection to the campaign. The proposed ordinance does not limit those
contributions and in fact cannot per the Supreme Court.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Mr. Dwyer's comments, the proposed ordinance was a successful
incumbent plan. If the problem the Council wanted to solve was to level the playing field, the proposed
ordinance did not accomplish that. As Councilmember Plunkett stated, with a limit of $750, he could
have raised $30,000 rather than $32,000. Leveling the playing field could be done via public financing of
campaigns which is another topic altogether and well worth discussing. If a candidate accepted public
financing, they would commit to accepting no private contributions and the amount of money spent on a
campaign could be limited.
In response to Mr. Hertrich's comment, Councilmember Wilson assured no Councilmembers would put
the time and energy into being a Councilmember if they could be bought by the amount of money that
was donated to a City of Edmonds campaign, whether it was $25 or $3000. To imply that any Edmonds
Councilmember lacked the integrity to do the job under the existing rules without selling their soles was
condescending to the nth degree.
Council President Bernheim advised his intent was not to approve the ordinance tonight but to consider
the Council and the public's comments and return at a later date.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified the difference between raising $32,000 or $30,000 was if the limit was
$750 versus $850. If there was a $250 limit, he would have raised and spent half the amount. Voters
would not have received three robocalls in one week if there was a $250 limit, instead of four mailings,
voters would have received two. If the intent was to prevent Councilmembers from raising campaign
funds in $2000 and $3000 increments and if the intent was to reduce campaign expenditures and make
campaigns more fair, Councilmembers should support a limit on campaign contributions.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas agreed with Mr. Dwyer that the proposed ordinance would allow a
wealthy individual to self - finance their campaign. She was concerned with the social and economic
impacts of having a Council comprised of people who self - funded their campaigns.
Council President Bemheim pointed out that under the current process, all contributions are unlimited;
anyone could contribute any amount.
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed the proposed ordinance pandered to the rich. A person can work
hard and run a grassroots campaign; she had one contribution of $500 and 250 contributions of lesser
amounts. She had no union or corporate contributions. If limits were established, a person would not
have to compete against a candidate able to finance multiple robocalls. She assured if someone self -
funded their campaign, the newspaper would report it.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with Mr. Dwyer's comments regarding the power of incumbency which
includes name recognition as well as resources from previous campaigns such as yard signs or campaign
literature. He questioned whether the proposed ordinance would require an incumbent to declare existing
yard signs as a donation. He summarized people would run for an open seat but were hesitant to run
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 9
against an incumbent. He agreed the current unlimited campaign contribution system was inappropriate
but was uncertain what amount would be appropriate. To the comment that Edmonds was an expensive
place to run a campaign, he pointed out it was expensive because Edmonds consistently has the highest
voter turnout in the State. Edmonds voters are educated and they want information. He wanted to retain
the right for people to support the candidate they believe in. He pointed out a $250 individual limit did
not necessarily equate to a $500 per household contribution because there were single households or
married people supporting different candidates. He preferred to utilize the PDC's existing system.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO DIRECT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO BRING BACK A DRAFT
ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION AND
AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT FULL COUNCIL MEETING.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas suggested obtaining an opinion from City Attorney Scott Snyder
regarding the constitutionality of placing a cap on the amount spent on a campaign and establishing a
limit on cash and in -kind contributions.
Councilmember Wilson asked Councilmember Plunkett whether his motion included a $250 limit.
Councilmember Plunkett answered not at this time; he anticipated proposing an amendment when the
ordinance was brought back to the Council.
Councilmember Wilson requested Council President Bernheim also research enforcement. Council
President Bernheim explained the proposed mechanism was cost free because the only thing the campaign
contribution limit did was limit the amount of the contribution. Under State law, every contribution to a
City Council must be reported to the PDC. The State PDC does not limit the amount; it only requires that
contributions are reported. The City would observe the PDC records and whenever the limit was
exceeded, the candidate would receive a call from the Police Department because the violation would be a
misdemeanor in the third degree. The violation would then be enforceable via the City Prosecutor. If a
candidate did not accurately report a contribution, they were committing a PDC violation. His intent was
to develop an inexpensive, easily controllable improvement to the current system that allowed unlimited
contributions from anyone anywhere in the world.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the proposed ordinance would task the Police Department with checking
campaign contributions to see who exceeded the limit? Council President Bernheim responded he knew
of at least 25 citizens who regularly read the PDC reports and anytime the contribution amount was
exceeded, it would be reported in the newspaper and the Police or the Mayor could ask the Prosecutor to
enforce the law. Mayor Haakenson responded that portion of the proposed ordinance needed work.
Councilmember Wilson agreed that the enforcement mechanism needed work. He disagreed the proposal
was cost free if it required the involvement of the Mayor, Police Chief or Prosecutor. He noted the
Council has expressed support for making the possession of marijuana the equivalent of a traffic
infraction. If the Council approved the proposed ordinance, exceeding the campaign contribution limit
was a misdemeanor. He suggested that portion of the ordinance needed further work.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified his intent was for the ordinance to be brought back to the Council with
Mr. Snyder available to answer questions.
Councilmember Orvis commented enforcement could be complaint driven. Although enforcement would
not be cost free, he did not anticipate there would be very many complaints.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 10
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Don Hall, Edmonds, reported on January 19 at approximately 10:45 p.m., Councilmembers Plunkett,
Fraley - Monillas, and Buckshnis and Council President Bernheim along with 8 -10 of their supporters went
to Engel's Pub. His efforts to inform the Councilmembers that a quorum was present were disregarded.
He contacted Mayor Haakenson the next day and he agreed the four Councilmembers were in violation of
the Open Public Meetings Act. Mr. Hall advised he had contacted Tim. Ford, Assistant Attorney General
who serves as Washington's Open Government Ombudsman. The City deserves and expects better from
these elected Councilmembers. To Councilmember Plunkett, as a senior Councilmember he should know
better. To Council President Bernheim, he should know the laws governing the Council. To
Councilmember Buckshnis, she ran on credible, trust and transparency. To Councilmember Fraley -
Monillas, although new, she has been around government long enough that she should know better. He
concluded it was a matter of public trust, openness, fairness and how the Council was perceived, not
necessarily that they had done something wrong.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, reported on the perception of three rolling quorums since the beginning of the
year. Two of the perceived violations occurred during the January 5 meeting, the first when the Council
rejected the Mayor's nomination of Ms. Broadway to the Planning Board. Ms. Broadway is extremely
well qualified, yet no Councilmember stated why they rejected her appointment. Councilmember Fraley -
Monillas had not interviewed Ms. Broadway. Because Mayor Haakenson's nomination was dismissed
without debate, he concluded the decision was made via illegal Councilmember communications outside
the public meeting. The second perceived violation at the January 5 Council meeting was the adoption of
an interim ordinance amending Title 20. Pointing out it was the first meeting of the year, the first meeting
for Councilmember Fraley - Monillas, there was not a full Council, the item was considered after 11:00
p.m., it was not on the agenda and there were no materials available, it was reasonable to assume there
was illegal communication outside the public meeting by the four Councilmembers who approved the
interim ordinance. The third perceived violation occurred at the January 19 Council meeting when a
Councilmember was instantly appointed, just nine minutes after the meeting began. The process occurred
so rapidly that Councilmember Fraley- Monillas's nomination of Ms. Petso did not receive her vote. He
assumed the selection occurred illegally outside the public meeting. He did not intend to file a Public
Records Request because he suspected the communication occurred by telephone. He assured the
Council that citizens were watching and urged them to do what was best for the City as a whole.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, announced the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club was in the early stages of
forming a P -patch for anyone interested in growing vegetables and who did not have their own garden.
She invited anyone who was interested to contact her via their website, www.
EdmondsMoretumGardenClub.or . She advised Edmonds once had a successful P -patch program and
many cities have P -patch programs where surplus vegetables were donated to food banks. The P -patch
program would be realized in cooperation with the City and the Parks Department and would be self -
sustaining. The Edmonds Garden Club is a 501(c)(3) organization which enables it to apply for grants
and donations are tax deductable. She provided a definition of P -patch from Wikipedia, noting there are
55 P- patches in Seattle that provide thousands of pounds of food to food banks.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, announced the Council Critic Committee has accepted Don Hall and Ron.
Wambolt as new members. He planned to retire from the Committee and allow Mr. Wambolt to take his
place.
David Thorpe, Edmonds, acknowledged the Council had multiple issues to address and he appreciated
the time and effort Councilmembers devoted. He relayed information from 2006 when Councilmember
Peterson, representing the Chamber of Commerce at that time, emphasized the importance of the vitality
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 11
of business and retail space, the same thing being discussed today. He was disgusted that a developer
representing a single property owner orchestrated the process at Firdale Village. He thanked
Councilmember Wilson and Wambolt for their efforts to tweak the developer's proposal. He relayed a
comment made by Mayor Haakenson in 2008 that the Council should not purchase the waterfront
property but amend the code to the current Council's satisfaction and that private property owners were
best suited to paying for design and development and land owners expected the City to have design
standards in place to guide developers in the process. At that time it was stated the Council had no plan in
place for the waterfront property and there were more pressing priorities. He agreed there were more
pressing priorities facing the City including an aquatics facility, the senior center, furloughs, budget
reductions, infrastructure, street overlays, etc. He urged Council to set goals and develop a vision at the
retreat to enable them to inform citizens how they planned to save the City from this financial calamity.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commented the Council had financial and economic development issues to
discuss, and difficult decisions to make regarding balancing parks and recreation, public safety and other
important priorities. He expressed concern with citizens attempting to distract the Council from the
difficult and good work they needed to do this year to move the City forward by suggesting there had
been inappropriate behavior. He commented the selection of Diane Buckshnis to fill the Council vacancy
was a happy moment for her supporters, including him. Some of those supporters and a few
Councilmembers met at a local establishment to take in the moment. Her supporters and the
Councilmembers were seated at two tables, with the noise of the establishment and conversations, it
would have been difficult for the group to have had a cohesive discussion.
Councilmember Plunkett welcomed the public's scrutiny, noting Councilmembers are public officials and
needed to be held accountable. He explained four members of the Council could attend the same social
event; in this instance, the members could not see each other or talk. He relayed the Council's emails had
already been requested.
To Mr. Hall, Councilmember Buckshnis assured she was not aware that a rule regarding four or more
Councilmembers constituted a quorum existed. She objected to his questioning her integrity when she
was not even aware that it was a violation. She pointed out she would have had to use sign language to
speak to Council President Bernheim due to his location at another table.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented Mr. Wambolt was her opponent in the election. She
explained she reviewed the application packet for the Planning Board Members and made an independent
decision based on the information provided. With regard to the interim ordinance amending Chapter 20,
she explained that was a highly contentious issue during the campaign; she wanted to include the people
in the process which differed from Mr. Wambolt's viewpoint. With regard to her nomination of Ms.
Petso, it was clear she would not get more than her vote for Ms. Petso. She assured she made her
decision to vote for Ms. Buckshnis based on the nominations. She suggested in the future Mr. Wambolt
talk with her if he had an issue with her actions. She summarized the Council had different views on
issues and were not meeting privately to plan their decisions.
Council President Bernheim commented it was incorrect that four Councilmembers could not meet
together. The Open Public Meetings Act prohibits the conduct of Council business outside the public
view without a public announcement. Travel and social occasions are exceptions allowed by the RCW.
Mayor Haakenson explained the email he sent to the Council after Mr. Hall contacted him recognized that
the Councilmembers were celebrating Councilmember Buckshnis' appointment and that City business
was not discussed; his concern was not a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act but the appearance of
four Councilmembers meeting together which is something the Council has tried to avoid in the past.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 12
9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS.
Council President Bernheim reported he attended the Community Transit Board meeting where members
of the Board were selected. Edmonds is a member of a 3- member large city group for which there are
two representatives; Councilmembers from Marysville and Lynnwood were elected to the Community
Transit Board.
Councilmember Wilson reported Councilmember Peterson and he attended the Lake Ballinger Forum
today. A list of the cities capital infrastructure needs has been developed. The next meeting will include
a discussion of a governance structure in order to fund the improvements. They are close to securing $1.4
million in federal funds via Congressman Jay Inslee's office.
Councilmember Peterson reported Councilmember Fraley- Monillas and he attended the Disability
Board's quarterly meeting. The Disability Board ensures the needs of past employees supported by
LEOFFI are addressed. He also reported on the Edmonds Public Facility District Board meeting which
included discussions regarding their budget issues. He urged the public to visit the Edmonds Center for
the Arts, one of the best in Puget Sound. Information regarding performances is available at EC4Arts.org.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she attended the Port Commission meeting yesterday that included
discussion regarding their finances and efforts to improve the public's understanding of revenue and
expenses. The Boat Show begins Friday. The Port of Edmonds is participating with 15 other marinas in
a Passport to Puget Sound. Boaters who have all the ports punched receive a $500 gift. The passport is
available on the Port's website.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported she attended the Disability Board meeting along with
Councilmember Peterson. She also attended a 2 -day AWC training. The AWC stated it is not illegal for
a group of Councilmembers to be in an area together; the issue was the perception.
Councilmember Plunkett reported via the efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission, there are now
13 homes on the Edmonds Historic Register. These listings build interest in preserving properties and
recognition of the program.
Councilmember Plunkett reported at the Downtown Parking Committee, Cultural. Services Manager
Frances Chapin informed them of Parking Day, September 17, where a parking stall is turned into a park
to demonstrate the need for parks. He advised the Parking Committee also received a letter complaining
about too much parking enforcement.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Bernheim reported he received and paid a parking ticket recently for having his car
parked on the street too long.
Councilmember Wilson reported he would be in Washington DC the rest of this week for work and will
also be meeting with members of the City's delegation regarding funding for Lake Ballinger and funding
for a railroad track overpass. He had also been in Olympia recently and observed the City's lobbyist
Mike Doubleday working on the City's behalf. He further reported his wife plans to take a group of
physicians to Haiti for ten days to visit orphanages.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 13
Councilmember Peterson reported his plans to attend the AWC conference in Olympia and looked
forward to conferring with other cities regarding ways to have their voices heard by the legislature and get
the funding they need.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 14