04/20/2010 City CouncilApril 20, 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 (arrived 7:02 p.m.)
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
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
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official.
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr.
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.)
2. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT — EDMONDS BICYCLE GROUP.
Hank Landau, Co- Chair, Edmonds Bicycle Group, explained when his children were young bicycle
skills training was provided by Officer Fred Bonallo funded via the Edmonds Police Department. A few
years ago the Edmonds Bicycle Group began a low -key program teaching bicycle safety at schools. The
Edmonds Bicycle Group then learned of a more formal program offered by Cascade Bicycle Club who
taught bicycle safety and skills to 1,100 children via the 3 school districts in King County. This was done
primarily through volunteers and the participation of the PE teachers at a cost of approximately $243 per
student, at no cost to the cities or school districts; costs are borne by fundraising done by Cascade and
other bicycle groups.
The Edmonds Bicycle Group contacted the Cascade Bicycle Club who expressed interest in extending
their program into Snohomish County. The Edmonds Bicycle Group contacted the Edmonds School
District and although they were initially uninterested, the PE coordinator, Jennifer Hershey, championed
the program and the Edmonds School District agreed to participate. Cascade and the School District
reached an agreement that will be signed once funding is identified.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 1
Mr. Landau described benefits of the program including enhanced childhood health, safety, and improved
interaction between cyclists and motorists. The program is accomplished by 30 bicycles that are rotated
between approximately 9 schools every 3 weeks. The PE teachers teach the students in the classroom and
outside and the children's progress is monitored. Cascade and other volunteers provide maintenance of
the bicycles and Cascade provides instruction to the PE teachers.
The Edmonds Bicycle Group requests the Council consider a resolution, authored by Councilmember
Peterson. Resolutions from Edmonds, Woodway, Mountlake Terrace and other cities will assist with
obtaining funding for the program. The cost of the first year is approximately $17,000; several funding
sources have been identified and the grant application process has begun. Once funding is secured, the
program will begin in half the Edmonds School District this fall with 30 bicycles and hopefully expand to
60 bicycles and the entire Edmonds School District the following year. (Note: Resolution in Support of
Bicycle Skills and Safety Training is Item P on the Consent Agenda.)
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT — CASCADE BICYCLE CLUB.
David Hiller, Advocacy Director, Cascade Bicycle Club, thanked Councilmember Wilson and
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas for attending the Bike to Work Breakfast today. He announced this year
is Cascade Bicycle Club's 30`h anniversary. The Club has 13,000 members and central Puget Sound is its
service area. They work closely with staff in Edmonds and other communities to develop and implement
non - motorized projects. He recognized the hard work and enthusiasm of local advocates and their efforts
to bring Cascade's bicycle safety program to Snohomish County. There is tremendous interest in the
program; they serve 3 school districts in King County with 4 trailers and 300 bicycles that rotate between
schools and there is an approximately 2 year waiting list.
Other assets that communities can avail themselves of include their website, www.bikewise.or to report
bicycle hazards and thefts. This is a great resource for the Public Works Department to learn of hazards in
the community. Cascade also has a community -based social marketing and education program in Seattle,
Bike Smart, that they are replicating for other eastside cities. The Bike Smart program provides resources
to the community via classes on maintenance and riding and encouraging citizens to trade a few of their
2 -mile or less car trips for a bicycle trip. Cascade is also involved in major bicycle advocacy efforts.
4. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2010,
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2010,
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #118163 THROUGH #118257 DATED APRIL 8, 2010
FOR $336,677.94, AND #118258 THROUGH #118440 DATED APRIL 15, 2010 FOR
$309,906.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #49192
THROUGH #49230 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OF MARCH 16 - MARCH 31, 2010 FOR
$644,165.25,
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM GAVIN HESSE
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), ROBERT E. THOMAS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED),
AND TONY CARABELLO ($4,877.49),
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 2
F.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR
TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH
THE
EDMONDS -SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY
HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR THE 2010
EDMONDS MARKET,
G.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR
TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH
THE
EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE 2010 EDMONDS
ARTS
FESTIVAL,
H.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR
TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH
THE
GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE FOR THE 4TH OF
JULY
PARADE AND FIREWORKS DISPLAY,
I.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR
TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH
THE
GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE FOR THE 2010 TASTE
OF
EDMONDS,
J.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR
TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH
THE
GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE 2010 CLASSIC
CAR
SHOW,
K. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN EASEMENT WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES
DISTRICT #1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR PORTIONS OF THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST TRACTION COMPANY RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR PURPOSES OF
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE INTERURBAN TRAIL
PROJECT FROM 76TH AVENUE WEST TO MATHAY BALLINGER PARK, AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD SAID EASEMENT,
L. SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG TASK FORCE, 201.0 -2011 INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT,
M. SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK FORCE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT,
N. APPROVAL OF 2010 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR NORTH END TAXI,
O. ORDINANCE NO. 3790 AND FEE RESOLUTION NO 1228 FOR TITLE 18
AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW USE OF CITY RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR BISTRO AND
OUTDOOR DINING AND PLACEMENT OF ART IN CITY RIGHT -OF -WAY.
P. RESOLUTION NO. 1229 IN SUPPORT OF BICYCLE SKILLS AND SAFETY TRAINING.
Q. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIVE PLANT APPRECIATION WEEK, APRIL 25
- MAY 1, 2010
5. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF EARTH DAY, APRIL 22, 2010.
Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation in honor of Earth Day, April 22, 2010, inviting the public to an
Earth Day event at 6:00 p.m. on April 22 at City Hall hosted by the Mayor's Climate Protection.
Committee and Sustainable Edmonds for citizens interested in learning how to help inspire local action.
The proclamation also urged citizens to consider the many ways they can be responsible stewards of the
planet's limited and precious resources.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS CITY CODE 5.05.060:
DOGS ON PUBLIC GROUNDS
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh thanked Cascade Bicycle Club and Edmonds Bicycle Group
for their support of the City's grant process for the Interurban Trail.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 3
The current Edmonds City Code 5.06.060, Dogs on Public Grounds, designates parks and areas within the
park as on or off. -leash areas. Currently there are eight designated parks where dogs are permitted. Seven
require dogs to be on -leash and at one, Marina Beach South, dogs are permitted off - leash. Staff
recommends that three additional park areas be designated as permitted on -leash sites:
1. Sunset Overlook Park: The path and grassy strip west of Sunset Avenue. Citizens have requested this
change in the past to allow people to not only walk their dogs here but also to be able to sit on the
numerous memorial benches along the overlook in the company of their canine companions.
2. Hickman Park Trails: During the public meetings phase, in advance of the final planning and
construction of Hickman Park, testimony indicated a strong desire for on -leash dogs along the 3,500
feet of paved and wooded paths in this new park. This is consistent with other City parks with
pathways such as Sierra, Pine Ridge, Yost, and others.
Haines Wharf Park: This overlook park will have a small interior trail and many benches for resting
and viewing. This park will be particularly attractive for people walking in the neighborhood that is
now connected to the recently completed walkways north from Meadowdale Beach Road. The new
walkways now provide a continuous off - street walkway from downtown Edmonds to the city's
northern boundary, Meadowdale Beach Park, and beyond.
In addition to the above, it has been suggested that dogs also be permitted on -leash on the paved paths of
Brackett's Landing North & South. Staff does not recommend this due to safety, control, and maintenance
concerns. At this time dog owners may use all City sidewalks including those nearest to, but not in, the
waterfront parks. When the designated on and off-leash areas were established in the mid 1990's staff
heard that mixing regular walkers with leashed dogs had created problems at the waterfront. As a public
safety concern, that is still observed today; Beach Rangers inform those who do not realize these walkway
are out of bounds. Walkers can be intimidated, worry about their balance, and be forced off the walkway
when a dog or two or more approach. Most dog owners are responsible and well- intentioned but some do
not exercise the best judgment or have the best control of their dogs.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Parks & Recreation staff for their assistance at the Marina Beach
Dog Park. She relayed that she spoke with the homeowners on Sunset Avenue regarding allowing dogs on
both sides of the street and most were supportive. She encouraged staff to post signs on Sunset Avenue
reminding dog owners to clean up after their dogs.
Council President Bernheim expressed his support for expanding on -leash areas to include the paved
paths of Brackett's Landing North & South. in order to encourage dog walkers to use the area and did not
find it sufficiently dangerous to exclude on -leash dogs. He observed staff's reason for not supporting that
expansion was concern with dog waste and pedestrians who may be intimidated by on -leash dogs in those
areas. Mr. McIntosh responded the paved paths in Brackett's Landing North & South were extremely
popular with walkers and as a result was more congested than a typical sidewalk.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, expressed support for the changes proposed by staff. He disagreed with
Council President Bernheim's suggestion to expand the on -leash area to include the paved paths of
Brackett's Landing North & South, envisioning dogs would be on the grassy area as well as the paved
areas and often on -leash dogs were not under the owner's control.
Josh Preston, Edmonds, suggested the civic playfields as an additional area for dogs on public grounds.
He cited problems with goose waste on the fields and suggested a program whereby dog owners could
register one dog at a time to run off -leash to chase away the geese.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 4
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, explained there was insurance available to address safety or damage associated
with walking pets in public places. He relayed that 68% of children have a dog or cat.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed support for the ordinance as proposed and disagreed with
expanding the on -leash area to include paved paths of Brackett's Landing North & South. He commented
dogs and their owners were given expanded rights already. The waterfront is a very special area and many
dog owners do not pick up after their pet. He suggested on -leash areas be expanded as proposed and if
there were no problems, on -leash areas could be further expanded. He noted dog owners could walk their
pets on any sidewalk in the City.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, suggesting adding Hutt Park as an additional on -leash park, explaining the 4-
acre Hutt Park was completely natural with large trees, ferns and trails and provides a loop from the
neighborhood up from 190`h to Olympic View Drive. She explained her dog is a rescue that has leash
aggression issues. It will be helpful to be allowed to walk on the opposite side of the street on Sunset to
avoid other dogs.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked if staff considered Hutt Park as an on -leash area. Mr. McIntosh
recalled 15 years ago Hutt Park was not considered because it is a natural area with no established paths.
He was not opposed to including Hutt Park but preferred input be sought from the neighborhood first.
Councilmember Buckshnis remarked Off -Leash Area — Edmonds (OLEA) receives many comments
about goose waste on the civic fields. Mr. McIntosh acknowledged goose waste was a problem in many
areas. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised staff was in the process of reviewing an Interlocal Agreement
with the Washington State Department of Fisheries regarding participation in a multi -city group for goose
control and removal where appropriate. The Interlocal Agreement will be presented to the Council within
the next month. The City's activities to date with regard to geese have been concentrated on the Lake
Ballinger area. Requesting the State's attention to the civic fields would be appropriate.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented most of the geese were Canadian Snow Geese and it was
illegal to haze them without a special permit. Mr. Snyder advised the Interlocal Agreement would allow
trained professionals to control the geese.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS CITY CODE
5.05.060 ALLOWING DOGS ON -LEASH AND ON THE DESIGNATED PATHS AT HICKMAN
PARK AND HAINES WHARF PARK AS WELL AS THE PATH AND GRASSY STRIP ALONG
THE WEST SIDE OF SUNSET AVENUE KNOWN AS THE SUNSET OVERLOOK.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented allowing on -leash dogs at Brackett's Landing had been discussed
at Town Hall meetings. She supported starting with the recommended expansion and considering
expanding to Brackett's Landing and Hutt Park in the future.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE
ASPHALTED AREAS OF BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH AND SOUTH. MOTION DIED
FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder advised an ordinance adopting the amendments would be scheduled on a future Consent
Agenda.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 5
Councilmember Orvis suggested scheduling a discussion of expanded on -leash areas to include Hutt Park
and other parks on a future Community Services /Development Services Committee agenda.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.82 (TRAFFIC IMPACT
FEES) OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Transportation Engineer Bernard Hauss explained a traffic impact fee is a one time payment paid by new
development for capital costs of public facilities. Impact fees can pay for system improvements that are
concurrency projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The funds must be spent within six
years of receipt of payment. Examples include signal improvements or widening projects. Impact fees
cannot pay for project improvements such as local street improvements, existing deficiencies or repair,
replacement, or renovation. He described how the updated traffic impact fee was calculated using the
eligible project list, eligible project costs, and growth trips in Edmonds to determine the unfunded cost
per growth trip.
Eligible Project costs
$10,376,999
Adjustment for other Revenues 3.23% of eligible cost
- 335,177
Unfunded Eligible Cost
10,041,821
Total Growth Trips
1,049.41
He noted the cost per growth trip has been updated since approval of the Transportation Plan ($1,041 /trip)
as the incorrect baseline capacity was used (LOS D City standard level instead of LOS E for SR -524
Highway of Regional Significance (HRS). He provided the following comparison of 2003 and 2009
impact fees:
Mr. Hauss explained Lynnwood and Shoreline currently do not collect impact fees for single family
residences; Mountlake Terrace's fee is $1,070, Issaquah's is $1,628 and Bothell's is $2,865. He reviewed
a chart of traffic impact fees for various land use categories. New categories added include senior
housing, health /fitness center, specialty retail, shopping center, fast food with drive -up, and coffee /donut
shop. Land use categories for hotel (addressed via motel land use category), racquet club and hospital
were removed.
Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell highlighted revisions to Chapter 18.82 to improve
administration and collection of traffic impact fees:
Calculation of impact fee for a change in use
• Current code states the impact fee for the proposed use is reduced by:
• the amount previously paid for the prior use or
• if no fees were previously paid, reduce by current rates for the prior use
• Proposed code change to reduce the impact fee by:
• An amount equal to fee of prior use at time use was permitted or
• If previous use was permitted prior to adoption of Ordinance 3516 (09/12/04), the 2004
rates shall be used.
• Inconsistencies in fee calculation are eliminated.
2. Assessment of impact fee
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 6
2003
2009
Eligible Costs
$4,669,041
$10,376,999
Growth Trips
6,114
9,569
Cost per Growth Trip
763.66
1,049.41
Impact Fee: Single family Residence
$840.72
$1,196.33
Mr. Hauss explained Lynnwood and Shoreline currently do not collect impact fees for single family
residences; Mountlake Terrace's fee is $1,070, Issaquah's is $1,628 and Bothell's is $2,865. He reviewed
a chart of traffic impact fees for various land use categories. New categories added include senior
housing, health /fitness center, specialty retail, shopping center, fast food with drive -up, and coffee /donut
shop. Land use categories for hotel (addressed via motel land use category), racquet club and hospital
were removed.
Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell highlighted revisions to Chapter 18.82 to improve
administration and collection of traffic impact fees:
Calculation of impact fee for a change in use
• Current code states the impact fee for the proposed use is reduced by:
• the amount previously paid for the prior use or
• if no fees were previously paid, reduce by current rates for the prior use
• Proposed code change to reduce the impact fee by:
• An amount equal to fee of prior use at time use was permitted or
• If previous use was permitted prior to adoption of Ordinance 3516 (09/12/04), the 2004
rates shall be used.
• Inconsistencies in fee calculation are eliminated.
2. Assessment of impact fee
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 6
• Current code
• Fee assessed at rates in effect when application is deemed complete
• Fee collected with issuance of a building permit
• Proposed code
• Fee assessed at rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
• If no building permit, chapter applies at issuance of business license.
• Allows collection of impact fees at current rates and eliminates inconsistent
assessment/collection
3. Addition of Section 18.82.150 (Procedure Guide)
4. Removal of Section 18.82.030 (D) - subsection no longer needed as the assessment of impact fees
for a change in use are specifically addressed in a separate subsection
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired why Shoreline and Lynnwood do not charge impact fees. Mr. Hauss
answered both cities were in the process of updating their impact fees.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the eligible projects could be funded via PSRC grants. Mr.
Hauss agreed they could; however, the impact fee would still be charged.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, expressed concern that many of the projects on the eligible project list were
unfunded.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3791, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.82 OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES; UPDATING THE CITY'S
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE; CLARIFYING THE APPLICATION OF THE TRAFFIC
IMPACT FEE FOR DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING A CHANGE IN EXISTING USE BUT NOT
REQUIRING A SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT; UPDATING CODIFIED REFERENCES TO
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS AND DOCUMENTS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE;
AUTHORIZING THE PROMULGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES; SETTING
FORTH LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A REVISED EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.30 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster explained the purpose of the Stormwater
Management Code was to:
• Control stormwater runoff from:
— Construction sites
— New development and redevelopment
• Minimize the effects from development on:
— Private and public property (including roads) from flooding or erosion
— The quality of our receiving waters from sediment or other pollutants
— Aquatic habitat including the physical damage of excessive flows that cause erosion and
sedimentation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 7
This revision is necessary because the Department of Ecology issued a Phase II Municipal Stormwater
Permit to Edmonds and 80+ other cities. The intent is to protect water quality, by reducing the discharge
of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The code was last revised 15 years ago and the science
of stormwater has changed a great deal in that time.
He reviewed the approach in the Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit:
• Large site projects ( > =1 acre):
— Primarily rely on the Permit and the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Manual, and other
ecology- approved equivalent and LID manuals Construction sites
• Small site project — updated:
— Allows LID techniques where feasible (such as permeable pavement)
— More pre -sized approaches (such as rain gardens, infiltration trenches, and dry wells)
— Updated sizing based on modern stormwater models
• Overall more choices and updated standards
Mr. Schuster provided a comparison of flow control standards in the proposed code versus the current
code for large sites, small sites with >2,000 but <5,000 square feet impervious surface and small sites
> =5,000 square feet impervious surface. He described the process for exceptions which include public
notice of the application for exception, legal notice of the City's decision on the application and written
findings of fact that document the City's decision on the application. The City's decision is appealable to
the Hearing Examiner by the applicant or other party.
The proposed code requires all private stormwater systems to be maintained by the owner rather than the
city. The City is allowed to inspect facilities and to require the owner to perform maintenance if standards
are not met. The companion Illicit Discharge Code (Chapter 7.200) allows the City to perform
maintenance on a private facility causing a water quality problem and to charge the owner for the work.
Mr. Snyder pointed out in response to a citizen comment, the appeal section was clarified to state the
appeal provision was open to any citizen and not only the applicant.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the requirement for owners to maintain private systems was
managed. Mr. Shuster answered the program would first target larger commercial and multi family
facilities due to the potential for those larger facilities to impact water quality. Councilmember Buckshnis
inquired about the number of private systems. Mr. Shuster estimated there were 400 -600 not including
single family systems. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how maintenance was currently managed. Mr.
Shuster acknowledged the inspection program was currently behind due to staffing issues. Staff will soon
present the Stormwater /Sewer Comprehensive Plan to the Council which includes a new approach to
maintenance. He invited anyone witnessing a problem with a stormwater facility to contact the City.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the stormwater /sewer program was part of the City's combined
utility. The Council has the ability to adjust utility rates to cover an enhanced inspection program.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Rita Miller, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the proposed amendments. She proposed adding requirements
for existing properties with no drainage systems. Her neighborhood was developed in 1898 and has no
drainage system; however, her property tax includes an assessment for a drainage system. She suggested
staff analyze areas that do not have drainage systems where runoff is eroding property or impacting public
property such as in her neighborhood where runoff impacts Hummingbird Park. She objected to being
charged for a drainage system when her neighborhood did not have one. She also proposed prohibiting
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 8
ChemLawn from working in the city due to runoff from ChemLawn treated lawns that pollute creeks and
streams.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Miller. As a resident on Lake Ballinger, he explained the
residents in that area began taking care of their own drainage issues approximately four years ago. He
agreed with the proposal for property owners to address their own drainage problems.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to address Ms. Miller's question regarding existing property with no
drainage and whether the City could prohibit ChemLawn from working in the city. Mr. Snyder responded
under Washington law, existing property owners are vested until they apply for a new permit. The City
has two tools to address existing properties causing drainage problems, 1) nuisance abatement procedures
can be utilized if they impact public property, and 2) neighbors have the ability to initiate Local.
Improvement Districts to fund projects. Mr. Snyder encouraged Ms. Miller to file a complaint with Mr.
Shuster regarding damage to property. With regard to properties without drainage systems paying
drainage fees, Mr. Snyder explained that issue was resolved by the Washington courts who found
stormwater drainage fees convey an area -wide benefit and allows fees to be applied to developed and
undeveloped properties. With regard to ChemLawn, he suggested staff could consider the issue in the
future. The City has some enforcement ability if fertilizers /pesticides impact runoff into streams;
Constitutional issues may arise if one business were prohibited without considering all fertilizers and
pesticides. Mr. Shuster advised under the current Elicit Discharge Code, it was illegal for a property to
knowingly discharge pesticides /herbicides /fertilizer into the storm drainage system.
With regard to areas without stormwater facilities, Mr. Shuster advised as part of the Stormwater
Comprehensive Plan, staff is developing projects to address erosion, water quality, etc. He invited the
public to inform him of areas of the City in need of storm drainage.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3792 REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 18.30 STORM
WATER MANAGEMENT OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
PROVIDING FOR THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING CHAPTER 1.8.30 TO VESTED
PERMITS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF SKIPPER'S PROPERTY.
Mayor Haakenson explained he was in Washington DC last week pleading the case to elected leaders on
behalf of cash strapped cities like Edmonds. Although he did not return with any money, he believed
Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congressman Inslee have a deep appreciation of the dilemma that
cities find themselves in during these difficult economic times. He found it ironic that between visits with
the Senators he received messages from reporters asking about the Council decision to sign a Purchase
and Sale Agreement for the Skipper's property.
Because the Council has tasked staff over the past few weeks with gathering information related to the
possible purchase of the site, the Council's action was not a complete surprise. He declined to comment to
the newspapers other than a brief statement because he had no idea exactly what the Council had done
and he wanted to read the minutes and review the video before reacting. He had the minutes sent to him in
Washington DC and has now watched the replay of the meeting. He had hoped the Council would have
refined the process and their thoughts to a vision that could be shared with Edmonds residents.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 9
Unfortunately as he watched the meeting, he saw the same discussion witnessed for the past several
weeks, an attitude of we want to buy this property, period.
He recalled the first question he asked the Council in executive session was for what purpose the Council
wanted to buy the property. After watching the Council meeting, he still did not know the purpose. He
learned a lot about what the Council did not want there but had not heard a vision supported by a majority
of Councilmembers of what they envisioned on the site that made spending a million dollars appealing to
the residents of Edmonds. He questioned how the purchase would be funded, noting four
Councilmembers had not yet agreed on that aspect of the purchase. He referred to the Council's
authorization of up to $100,000 for feasibility studies and questioned where that money would come
from. He referred to the motion made by Council President Bernheim and approved 5 -2, to appropriate
$100,000 from some source. He envisioned the Council would react negatively if he asked them to
expend $100,000 on needed computer equipment funded via an appropriation from some source.
He found it interesting that Council. President Bemheim had allowed ten minutes on tonight's agenda for
public comment regarding the possible purchase of Skipper's property, envisioning it would take much
longer. More interesting was the next item on the agenda was public comment on budget cuts. He
summarized the public was being asked to comment on the purchase of property and then asked where to
make budget cuts.
With regard to whether it was wise for the City to purchase the property, he agreed it may or may not be;
without knowing what it would be used for or how to pay for it, it was difficult to judge. He recognized
some speakers would think there was no better time to purchase the property because difficult economic
times allow it to be purchased for a good price from a distressed seller. However, he questioned why
someone else had not already purchased the property if it was such a bargain. He questioned how the
Council knew it was a bargain when no appraisal had been done. These are a few of the many questions
for the Council to answer over the next 90 days.
He commented these were difficult economic times; no one saw this recession coming and it has
exacerbated the City's already precarious budget situation. The budget shortfalls the City is experiencing
did not just appear in the last six months. In every budget book for the last six years, going back to 2004,
the General. Fund cash flow projections forecast the City to dip into the red sometime between 2009 and
2012. The latest projections provided the Council dated March 15, 2010 show the deficit in 2012.
Contrary to some Council comments, past Councils have taken many steps along the way to push the
deficit year further out but the economy has finally taken its toll.
Watching last week's Council meeting, he heard a Councilmember skeptical of the budget numbers staff
provided. He explained the 2004 through 2010 budgets he quoted from were built by three different
Finance Directors and all reached the same conclusion regarding when the deficit would come to fruition.
The City has a knowledgeable, conservative finance staff who have many more years of training and
experience than anyone on the Council and they have served the City well for many years. Expense and
revenue projections are conservative; that is how he has chosen to operate for the past 11 years and sees
no reason to move away from a conservative viewpoint today.
With regard to the timing of this potential property purchase, he commented that due to the City's
economic situation, either new revenues need to be identified or services reduced. The Council
formulated a plan last year to go to the voters with a levy request to raise taxes. If the levy failed, services
would be cut. In the midst of that effort, the Fire District 1 proposal arose and the Council chose to move
ahead with that proposal and push the levy to 2010. To date, he had not heard any concrete plans from the
Council for a 2010 levy although Council President Bernheim has said it is moving ahead and discussion
is scheduled later on tonight's agenda. He anticipated Edmonds voters would question the need to pay
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 10
more taxes when it appeared the City had money to buy property. He believed the Council's action to
purchase the Skipper's site would doom any levy vote in 2010 to failure.
Mayor Haakenson referred to furlough days requested of staff last year to balance the budget and requests
that non -union employees forego any merit increases, emphasizing City employees had done their part.
This year all labor contracts will be negotiated for the next three year cycle; to ask the labor unions to
consider furloughs, wage freezes or contracts that favor management will be a very difficult task if the
City is out purchasing property. He envisioned labor's logic would be if you can buy property, you can
pay City employees.
He recognized the Council had some time to make this decision and several hurdles to overcome. He
suggested the Council consider doing an appraisal of the property and /or doing a soil study since work the
City has done near the area found some contamination. If the Council chose to buy this property, he urged
the Council to provide their vision for its purpose and not buy property as a defense against what private
ownership may do there. He recommended the Council prioritize the City's needs, questioning whether
this purchase was more important than passing a levy that would continue current service levels or
negotiating favorable labor contracts. He urged the Council to keep in mind the message they were
sending to taxpayers, City employees and labor unions if they moved ahead with the proposed purchase.
Council President Bernheim asked about the contamination the City found in that area. Mayor Haakenson
responded last week when staff learned of the Council's action, the Engineering Department provided
him studies done in the area over the past couple years. The Council requested staff bring back contracts
for next Tuesday's meeting to do due diligence which includes a feasibility study; those reports would be
provided at that time. Council President Bernheim asked whether Mayor Haakenson was aware of the
studies when the Council was discussing the purchase. Mayor Haakenson answered he was not, advising
it was contamination under Railroad Avenue.
Mayor Haakenson reported the Council received 16 emails before tonight's Council meeting, 9 opposed
to the purchase and 7 in favor. The Council also received 3 emails regarding building heights although the
Council was not discussing building heights tonight.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas explained she was told during executive session that the Council could
not discuss a vision for the property, that had to be done during a public meeting. That was why the
Council had not yet had an opportunity to reach a consensus on a vision for the site. The first time the
Council was able to talk about the purchase during a public meeting was last Tuesday. There were many
suggestions made regarding funding; she was particularly interested in grants or other methods of funding
the purchase that would not affect the City's budget. She suggested the public comment on whether or not
they supported the purchase, not that the Council was taking money out of the General Fund to purchase
the property. She also urged the public to provide their vision for the site, noting the Council still must
decide whether to proceed with the purchase. She summarized the Council would be remiss if they did not
consider this opportunity.
Council President Bernheim urged the audience to listen to what everyone has to say. He objected to
Mayor Haakenson's criticism of the Council for not presenting a vision for the site, commenting the
Council was unable to discuss their vision for the site during executive session. The Council is soliciting
the public's input on their vision for the property. He agreed grants were available for the purchase from
outside sources and anticipated the purchase would not be 100% funded from operating funds. He
commented the deficit figures provided to the Council assume an annual labor increase in excess of 5%
per year compounded annually. He summarized the City needed to do both; pay its employees reasonable
salaries and provide reasonable work conditions as well as provide for the future.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page l I
Councilmember Peterson explained the Council appointed three Councilmembers to develop a vision for
the property; however, when Councilmember Wilson presented an idea he was resolutely lambasted by
other Councilmembers. He agreed with Mayor Haakenson's point questioning why the property had not
already been sold if it was such a good deal and questioned why the Purchase and Sale Agreement was
necessary before a vision has been developed. He acknowledged the purchase may be a good idea, but
disagreed with allocating up to $100,000 before the Council knew whether it was a great idea. With
regard to increases in labor costs, he emphasized City employees were not receiving extravagant raises
every year; the increase was due to filling positions that had not been filled in the past and cost increases
in healthcare benefits.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented $1.6 million was on the books for the property at Cascade Bank
and they turned down an offer for $1 million. The Mayor negotiated the $1.1 million purchase price. She
agreed three Councilmembers were appointed to discuss a vision for the site, anticipating the emails
regarding building heights were in response to Councilmember Wilson's presentation that proposed 38-
foot tall buildings on the WSDOT property. With regard to visioning, Councilmember Buckshnis pointed
out the fiber optics project cost $450,000, yet little has happened. The City spent over $600,000 on
attorneys to do code rewrites; that is visioning. She questioned whether the vision for people exiting the
ferry was a Jack in the Box, noting that was not her vision.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council had not received financials since September 30, 2009
and there is no support, assumptions or trends for the information she has been provided. This is one of
the reasons fiscal policies were created; to allow citizens to understand the City's financial health. Since
learning the Fire District 1 numbers were not as they should have been, she has questioned the accuracy
of all the numbers. She was unable to accept the forecasts until actual financial information and
assumptions to support the forecasts were provided, noting there were no EMS fees in the forecasts.
Recognizing that all Councilmembers were sincere in their efforts to serve the public, Councilmember
Wilson emphasized the vast majority of funds for this purchase will be from the General Fund. The
biggest chunk will either be debt for which the City will pay debt service on from the General Fund or it
will be from the Fire District 1 funds that were in the General Fund until recently when Council action
moved them into a separate account. He summarized the purchase would impact the General Fund other
than a small amount of REET.
Councilmember Wilson explained the property was valued at one time at $1.9 million. The property was
sold in 2006 at the height of the market for $1.0 million and he anticipated the value had diminished since
then. To the point that the Council had not yet made a decision, he pointed out the Council made a 5 -2
decision to make an offer on the property and another 5 -2 decision to spend $100,000 on feasibility
studies. The Council could not have it both ways — say they were not looking at it and voting to spend
money to look at it. To the point regarding the Council appointing Council President Bernheim, her and
himself to a committee to discuss a vision, he noted the three had entered into that process open minded,
flexible and in good faith. His intent was never to undermine that good faith; the presentation provided in
the meeting with the WSDOT, the Port, and City staff and later to the Council was "literally throwing
stuff at the wall to see what might stick." He concluded the Council had an opportunity to have a
visioning conversation the evening he made that presentation; however, some Councilmembers chose to
demagog that process.
Councilmember Wilson referred to an email from Susan Tate stating she did not support Councilmember
Wilson's taller building plans for the waterfront or Mr. and Mrs. Sacks objecting to an 8 -story building on
the Skipper's property, commenting it was a disservice to the public that they had been led to believe by
some Councilmembers that was the topic of discussion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Orvis advised the 2010 assessment of the property is $1.180 million; last year's
assessment was $1.246 million. He recognized the real estate market fluctuated and was down at present,
which was the reason he felt this was a good time to purchase the property rather than wait five years.
Councilmember Plunkett was hopeful half the funds for the purchase, $600,000, would come from one-
time Fire District 1 money. Although the funds had been in the General Fund until recently, he explained
the Council had agreed early in the process that those funds would not be used for General Fund
expenses. The intent was to use those funds for an asset -to -asset purchase, one time money for a one time
purchase. He pointed out any property purchase required the expenditure of some money for due
diligence. Of the remaining $500,000, he recognized the possibility that $400,000 - $500,000 from the
General Fund may need to be applied to the purchase; however, there was potential for transportation,
park or trail grants and WSDOT is interested in having an overpass constructed. He anticipated the
purchase price could be covered by the use of Fire District 1 funds and repaying the General Fund with
grant proceeds. There has also been a suggestion for structured parking below with a park on top. He
anticipated parking could generate $100,000 /year that could be used to repay the General Fund.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out labor costs would increase to $16.5 million next year and $22.3
million in five years. He explained that was not to maintain the labor force, those were increasing costs in
the labor force. The purchase of the Skipper's property would be a public asset at the cost of $1.1 million
weighed against ongoing operating costs such as labor costs. He explained the entire increase in the
budget over the next five years was $9 million. He summarized there was room to reduce operating costs
as well as potentially purchase an asset with non - operating funds.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented she had not had an opportunity to state her vision for the
property. The Council was not allowed to discuss visioning during executive session and Councilmember
Wilson has made a presentation regarding his vision. Councilmember Wilson clarified it was not his
vision, it was not the Council committee's vision; it was simply a thought exercise. He pointed out the 5-
story concept was from the Port. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas anticipated during the upcoming
weeks, the citizens of Edmonds would provide their vision. Her vision for the property was for it to
become an entryway for the City, not just a park, not just picnic tables, but a tourism center with the
history of the Edmonds waterfront and staffed by volunteers. She also envisioned places to stay, eat and
shop in the center and connectivity between the waterfront and downtown corridor. She recognized it may
be years before the vision for the site could be realized but unless the City purchased the site, people
exiting the ferry would not really see Edmonds.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented her understanding was the $50,000 earnest money was
refundable at nearly any point. Mayor Haakenson responded the terms the Council negotiated did not
require the earnest money be paid for 24 days. He believed the bank was amenable to giving the City back
its $50,000 if the Council decided to walk away. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not interested in
losing the City's money but was interested in seeing what could be developed on the site. She encouraged
the citizens of Edmonds to speak to the Council.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented in addition to the emails Mayor Haakenson referred to, most
of the telephone calls, text messages, emails she has received have been in favor of the purchase.
Mayor Haakenson explained the Council appropriated $100,000 to do studies; if the Council issued an
RFQ for a consultant to do soil studies or whatever studies the Council requested and those funds were
expended and the Council later decided not to purchase the property, those funds would not be returned.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas believed the $100,000 included the earnest money. Mayor Haakenson
explained there were two different motions, one to authorize him to sign the Purchase and Sale
Agreement with $50,000 due in 24 days and a second to appropriate $100,000 for studies.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether the studies would cost $100,000. Mayor Haakenson
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 13
advised the contracts would be presented to the Council at next Tuesday's meeting. Councilmember
Fraley- Monillas summarized the Council would have a better idea of costs next Tuesday.
Councilmember Peterson commented Councilmembers Buckshnis and Councilmember Plunkett are on
the Finance Committee. Councilmember Plunkett references a document that contains increases in labor
costs and states that because the labor numbers can be changed, the City can afford the property. He
questioned whether the Council and public should believe Councilmember Plunkett's numbers or
Councilmember Buckshnis who refuses to believe the numbers.
A member of the audience inquired whether there was to be a public hearing. Council President Bernheim
responded it was intended to be a public hearing before Mayor Haakenson made his comments.
To Council President Bernheim's comment that this was a public hearing before he made his comments,
Mayor Haakenson emphasized he was in Washington DC last week and was not present on Committee
night when the Council made a decision to hold a meeting and did not have an opportunity to make his
comments last. It is appropriate for him provide comment when the Council was spending $1 million of
the taxpayers money. Council President Bernheim said he would prefer to follow the agenda.
Mayor Haakenson provided the following in response to Council comments:
• To Council President Bernheim's claim that City employees are receiving 5% pay increases,
Mayor Haakenson stated that was incorrect. The wage increases in the 2011 budget are 3.5 %, and
3.3% in the 2012 budget. Council President Bernheim clarified he said the labor budget increase
was an average of 5% compounded per year.
• To Councilmember Buckshnis' comment that he negotiated the $1.1 million purchase price, he
explained the Council directed him to negotiate with the bank and get the best deal possible. He
offered $1,050,000, the bank countered at $1.1 million.
• To Councilmember Buckshnis' comments regarding fiber optics, he assured the fiber optic
program was created, supported and funded each year by the City Council.
• To Councilmember Buckshnis' comment that she has not received financials since September
2009, Mayor Haakenson said financials mean different things to different people. Last week
before executive session the Council was provided a cash flow projection dated March 15, 2010
for the next seven years, an executive summary, and a current forecast for all revenues and
expenses that show the City going into deficit in 2012. He summarized it was disingenuous to say
no financials had been provided.
• To Councilmember Buckshnis' comment that the Fire District 1 numbers were not as they should
have been, he had no idea what that meant. The Fire District 1 numbers have come in exactly as
staff projected. Although he continues to hear that is not the case, no one has yet shown him what
that means.
• To Councilmember Buckshnis' comments that EMS fees are not in the numbers, Mayor
Haakenson said EMS fees are included in the budget book for 2009 and 2010 at $700,000 and in
the forecast at $800,000 for 2010 and $820,000 for 2011.
• To Councilmember Plunkett's comments that the General Fund budget would increase $9 million
in 5 years, Mayor Haakenson clarified it had increased $9 million over the past 5 years, it was
status quo. The budget went down $2 million in 2010 due to transferring the Fire Department.
Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, commented two years ago when the Council considered development of
the Waterfront Activity Center he did not believe that an owner or City - driven master plan that relied on
an owner being a willing partner with the at -large community's interest was plausible based on history.
The owners obtained these properties seemingly without intent of developing under the current code and
they remain blighted and underdeveloped. The Skipper's property is a valuable community asset from a
quality of life and economic development standpoint due to its proximity to the waterfront, ferry, train
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 14
station, marina and downtown businesses. The ability to control development of the Skipper's property is
too great an opportunity to pass and the opportunity becomes more valuable given WSDOT's interest in
developing the adjacent property via a public- private partnership. He recalled a presentation made to the
Economic Development Commission (EDC) by a Bothell representative describing their economic
development program who stated taking possession of critical properties was a key element of their plan.
Bothell relied on an imminent domain process because they did not have the same opportunity to
purchase property. He commented on the value Edmonds lost when the Council did not pursue the
property where Costco and Home Depot are now located. He commented on the energy from the EDC
and citizen groups such as Imagine Edmonds, summarizing if the Council believed in Edmonds, they
must be willing to find a way to make investments in the future. He encouraged the Council to have the
will to find a way.
John Quast, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to the proposed purchase of the Skipper's property.
Although Councilmembers have stated the City's finances are in such dire straits that they were
considering asking voters this fall to raise their taxes, some of those same Councilmembers now
enthusiastically support spending more than $1 million to purchase the Skipper's site. He recommended
the Council infonn the public prior to any real estate purchase of the source of funds for the down
payment, to complete the purchase, to develop the property, and for operating and maintenance. Once
those questions were answered, the Council could be justified in asking for a levy, until then the message
was the City's running out of money but wants to buy real estate. He was concerned that Councilmembers
do not trust the financial reports they have been provided and do not know the City's financial status, yet
supported spending money for an undefined dream. Before the City purchased any property, the Council .
should inform the public of the plans for the property and it should be a plan supported by the public. Last
year the City's financial state was so dire, employees were asked to take unpaid days off, this proposal to
spend money on real estate makes a mockery of their sacrifice. He summarized the Council's priorities
were misplaced, their vote hasty and their offer to purchase the property ill- conceived.
Priya Cloutier, Edmonds, was surprised by tonight's discussion, recalling when she spoke with several
Councilmembers last week she was told this was a done deal. She pointed out last year staff was asked to
take sabbatical days and the Council would soon be renegotiating contracts. She referred to
Councilmember Buckshnis' comment in a blog that some companies have instituted salary freezes,
clarifying that salary freezes were quite different from sabbatical days. She pointed out other debts the
City is responsible for including $8 million for the self - funded firefighters' insurance. She compared the
$600,000 the City received from Fire District 1 from the sale of assets to a tax refund, should the taxpayer
choose to pay off credit card debt or take a trip to Disneyland with the tax refund? She spoke in support of
paying off debt, funding the firefighters insurance and paying staff what they are worth. She referred to
Councilmember Orvis' comment on a blog that the purchase could be funded via a bond, reminding him
that a bond was a loan that required repayment. She summarized the current recession was the result of
living in debt; she expected the Council to act more responsibly. She urged the Council not to say that
their minds were not made up when the blogs and emails clearly showed that they had made up their
mind. She urged the Council to do the right thing.
Ron Clyborne, Edmonds, commented he was dressed in black tonight, mourning the slow death of the
community. The fiscal irresponsibility that has pervaded in the system and the process over the past few
years has pushed the City close to bankruptcy, projected to occur in 2012. He believed in dreams and that
the Skipper's property under certain circumstances and different conditions could be a magnificent entry
to the community; however, the City simply did not have the money. He recalled when interested citizens
urged the City to fund Yost Pool and later fundraised to keep the pool open. He urged the Council to get
back to basics; if they did not have the money, they could not purchase property. He pointed out the
$100,000 the Council approved for a feasibility study was nearly 10% of the total purchase price, yet the
Council talked about that amount like it was nothing. He noted $100,000 was a lot of money to most
people including the Police and Fire Departments and the City employees who last year took pay cuts and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 15
furloughs. As a business man, he did not understand how the Council could purchase this property,
pointing out some Councilmembers did not even understand the Purchase and Sale Agreement. As a
realtor, he explained an assessed valuation meant nothing in this market; most commercial properties, the
few that were selling, were sold far below assessed value. He respectfully requested the five
Councilmembers who supported purchasing the Skipper's property open their minds and listen to the
community over the next 24 days.
Diane Talmadge, Edmonds, expressed her opposition to purchasing the Skipper's property for all the
reasons mentioned by Mayor Haakenson. She commented the waterfront of Edmonds was being talked
about as though it were Mukilteo. The Edmonds waterfront is and has been a beautiful place even with
Skipper's; there is a wonderful park on one side of the ferry terminal and a great park and walkway on the
other. She urged the Council to wait to buy property until the City could afford it.
John McGibbon, Edmonds, commented last year it was his understanding the City was operating under
financial duress but after watching last week's meeting, he may have been misinformed. He urged the
Council to provide citizens an accounting of discretionary funds and a prioritized list of how those funds
might be spent. He challenged the Council to develop a solid business case for purchasing the Skipper's
property as well as a compelling rationale for buying the property versus servicing the community's other
needs. He hoped the final decision was based on thought rather than emotion. As a taxpayer, he did not
appreciate the Council spending from the hip.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, urged the Council to abandon the Skipper's property purchase for the
following reasons: first, the purchase is not critical; all Councilmembers agree it is important for the City
to control the Skipper's property and certainly the site could be significantly improved. Second, the City
does not have the money to purchase the property. Councilmember Buckshnis has said she does not
believe the financial statements since September 2009 because they lack clarity and the outlook is more
optimistic than predicted. He questioned how a self - described fiscal conservative would conclude that
statement she finds vague are also too pessimistic. If some Councilmembers did not believe the financials,
he questioned why that issue was not being resolved as accurate financial statements was a far more
important issue than spending hours on property acquisition. The five Councilmembers have discussed
getting $600,000 of the purchase price from the City's Emergency Fund. The purchase of the property is
not an event that is sudden and unexpected and it is not an emergency. He suggested depleting the
Emergency Fund by one -third could also lower the City's credit rating. Third, the purchase price of $1.1
million is too high. The property sold in 2006 for $1 million; it likely appreciated in 2007 and dropped
again in 2008 and 2009 and is now worth less than $1 million. He pointed out Snohomish County's 2010
assessments were done in 2009. He advised the motion passed by the Council on November 2 with regard
to Fire District 1 stated the funds from depreciating assets would be placed in the General Fund.
Todd Cloutier, Edmonds, commented he had already made several public statements regarding the
Skipper's property on the MyEdmondsNews.com website and Councilmember Orvis' blog. He objected
to the purchase, viewing it as a taking of resources for a very poorly defined need at a time when
resources were scarce. He recalled last month the Council denied $2500 to the police, citing a short
budget. He was reminded of a speech by President Eisenhower who stated while it seemed like a good
idea to buy a new bomber, a single bomber could pay for 50 schools. By choosing to obligate citizens to a
$1 million purchase, the Council took control of valuable resources that could not be used for other
purposes. He was proud of the Economic Development Commission the Council appointed, noting they
could have and should have been part of this process. By this purchase, the Council has informed them
their services were no longer needed or appreciated, just as the Council's actions told City employees that
their sacrifices last year were for naught. He urged the Council not to betray the public's trust again.
George Murray, Edmonds, explained he had been asked by Rick Sieves to read a letter but had been
informed he needed a letter from Mr. Steves authorizing him to read the letter. Mr. Murray commended
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 16
the Council for their decision to purchase the Skipper's property, urging the public to separate operating
expenses from capital purchases. The $1.1 million purchase price represented approximately $80 per
household. He supported purchasing the Skipper's property as well as reducing the City's expenses. The
property provides a lot of great opportunity as well as enormous potential for the waterfront. The
purchase was beyond a business model and represents a community model. He supported the community
determining how to pursue the property purchase as well as develop the property. He commented on
revenue potential via development on Hwy. 99.
Chris Fleck, Edmonds, commented he was wearing green to denote the waste of $1 million. He
questioned the Council voting 5 -2 to buy real estate for over $1 million when there was not enough
money to maintain the City's Fire Department, when the City nearly lost its pool due to budget cuts and it
was saved only by public donations, when there is a citywide hiring freeze, when City staff must be
furloughed to save money, when employees were required to take pay cuts, and when essential
maintenance of roads and other projects were deferred. He questioned the decision to purchase property
for which no appraisal has been done and for which no use has been identified, a decision made during a
Council meeting intended for committee meetings and feasibility studies that will cost thousands more
that the City cannot afford. He questioned why the Economic Development Commission and taxpayers
were not consulted and why no public meetings were held. Now instead of a business person purchasing
the property for a fast food restaurant as rumored or other business that would contribute badly needed
sales and property tax dollars, the property would be taken off the tax rolls. While the Council was
wasting tax dollars, the Police Department has closed its Crime Prevention Program including the
Vacation House Check Program that has only been operating for the past 16 months via the generosity of
the Rotary Club and people who use the service. To Councilmember Plunkett's comment that the site
could be developed with underground parking and a park above, his understanding was the water table
would not permit underground parking.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, enthusiastically endorsed the Council's intent to purchase the Skipper's
property. She explained it had been four years since information was provided by the Group of 33; no
previous Council had been able to make a decision during that time and this Council did so within four
months. With regard to funding, she suggested cutting the Economic Development Department,
questioning the wisdom of establishing a new department when the City was struggling to pay existing
staff. She also supported the use of the Emergency Reserve Fund, commenting $1.9 million was unlikely
to solve problems created by a natural disaster. She noted economic development was not the most
important issue for a city; quality of life and citizens' enjoyment was foremost. Her vision for the site was
simply to landscape it, and she viewed this purchase as the first step in acquiring the entire waterfront by
public vote.
David Page, Edmonds, referred to a blog that included numerous attachments with unkind rhetoric about
the City. He commented the City employees who sacrificed by taking pay cuts and furloughs over the past
year and future years would view this purchase as an ethics and integrity issue. He anticipated the
property could be worth $10 million in 10 years. He urged the Council to get out of the Purchase and Sale
Agreement as gracefully and as fast as possible in order to avoid the repercussions that would occur if the
sale were finalized.
Beth Aversa, Edmonds, expressed her opposition to the purchase for many of the reasons that had
already been mentioned. Her bottom line was if the City did not have the money, it should not be spent.
The City clearly did not have the money and should stop spending. She suggested Mr. Murray pay the
$80 for her household because she was definitely opposed to the purchase.
Liz Marks, Edmonds, commented she thought she lived in Edmonds but now thinks it is La -La Land. As
a financial planner she often tells people that while it is great to have dreams, the reality is they cannot
afford many of the things they want. She suggested the City could not afford this purchase right now,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 17
certainly not in view of the sacrifices made by City staff. She was embarrassed by the Councilmembers
who voted to purchase the property.
Darlene Stern, Edmonds, commented given the current economic state the City was in, it was
incomprehensible that the Council would be so irresponsible to offer to purchase property without
adequate resources. Making this decision during a committee meeting without input from the public who
will be forced to pay for this reckless behavior was not transparency in government. Whether or not the
Council ultimately purchased the property, they were spending considerable resources just to obtain
environmental and feasibility studies while they continue to cut City services and personnel because there
is not enough money. No reasonable or responsible person would make an offer to purchase property if
their budget was not balanced. The taxpayers should not be treated like a line of credit that the Council
could tax at will. She respectfully requested the Council not purchase the property. She thanked Mayor
Haakenson for his comments, finding them thoughtful and common sense.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, was saddened by the amount of underlying nastiness she has heard. She urged
citizens to pull together to reach a reasonable solution and to move forward and be bold. With regard to
the comment regarding Mukilteo, she pointed out although Mukilteo was a beautiful city, the landscape
near the ferry terminal was dominated by an ugly, massive condominium building. She did not want Jack
in the Box as the gateway to the City and wanted people exiting the ferry to visit Edmonds. She noted
during difficult times, businesses needed to advertise and better their businesses by making investments.
She thanked the Council for having the courage to invest during bad times to improve the future better.
Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, agreed it was important for citizens to be civil both at Council meetings and on
blogs. He emphasized the question was not what the vision was for this property but how the property fits
the vision for the City in the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed most would like to have the property near
the waterfront developed, but the question was whether acquisition at this point in time fit where the City
was headed. In his opinion it did not and now was not the time to purchase the property. He commented
the emails, letters and telephone calls Councilmembers received were not the same as a long range
visioning process to arrive at a decision to spend $1.1 million. Two visions have been expressed by the
Council, a park atop a garage and a tourism center; throwing out a solution was not the way to arrive at a
vision. He urged the Council to focus on the process and get it right.
Brian Larman, Edmonds, commented there were a number of times in his life when he regretted not
taking action or not taking the time to research financing until an opportunity was lost. He urged the
Council to look carefully at funding alternatives. This purchase was a wonderful opportunity, one of the
biggest things facing the City. He urged the Council to be bold and move forward with the purchase as
well as think through how the purchase would be funded. He supported developing an overall vision for
the City and how this site would fit into that vision.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented everyone could agree improvement was needed in the City's
waterfront area. He recalled an opportunity to purchase a park in South Edmonds resulted in the City
purchasing only half the property for approximately the same amount as all the property due to
unanticipated legal costs. He acknowledged any property purchase involved some risk but there were also
significant rewards. He supported the public having an opportunity to comment on the purchase but hoped
the Council would take the lead and make it happen. He summarized the Edmonds waterfront had
tremendous potential and cited Friday Harbor as an example. He was strongly in favor of the Council's
action to purchase the Skipper's property.
Chris Davis, Edmonds, voiced his opposition to the purchase of the Skipper's property, pointing out the
$1.1 million purchase price did not include the cost of determining the use and developing the site, a
process he anticipated cost another $1 million to $10 million. He agreed with Councilmembers Wilson
and Peterson that this was not the time or financial climate to spend money the City did not have. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 18
found it ironic that the next agenda item was public comment on budget cuts; this should be the first
budget cut. Government's primary responsibility is health and safety; this purchase represents neither.
Health and safety was the Fire Department that the Council abrogated to Fire District L The City can ill
afford to spend money on dreams and personal agendas. It has been suggested the City purchase the
property to control it; citizens are not interested in government controlling their lives. Citizens have lost
faith in their government due to actions such as this, government that is not responsive to the people and
government spending money that is not theirs on something they cannot afford. He suggested the
Skipper's building could be used as a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen or for a monument to fiscal
irresponsibility.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated his vision for the property was similar to the modeling done by the
high school students, the property between Main and Dayton would be public use with other public -
private partnership uses on the remainder. He envisioned this property purchase could be funded via the
funds from the sale of assets to Fire District 1, REST funds and grants. Before the site was developed it
could be used for parking and the City collect funds paid for parking. With regard to fiscal .
irresponsibility, he recalled when property on the waterfront was purchased for $500,000 and grants were
obtained to repay the General Fund.
Tracy Cobbin, Edmonds, a real estate agent for 11 years, urged the Council to walk away from this deal,
commenting the assessed value or what the property was worth in 2006 had little to do with its current
value. The purchase was not appropriate at the expense of City employees, Yost Pool or in this economy.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out the Diamond Parking Lot did not renew their parking application in
2010 in the waterfront area. He would support purchase of the Skipper's property if it were funded 100%
via grants and developed with a use that generated revenue. He suggested Councilmembers contact
Financial Director Lorenzo Hines to discuss the City's finances.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, reported the post office property was sold for $2+ million; the listing price was
$4.150 million, illustrating the stated price of a property did not reflect its actual value. Although she
wholeheartedly agreed with the vote to purchase the property, it was sometimes necessary to make
decisions not with your heart but with your head. As a small business owner, she envisioned if she cut her
employees pay while buying a second home, there would be integrity issues. During her education in
urban planning /city management/community design, wonderful places such as Central Park and cities
where property was transformed into gathering places were often showcased. One of the most important
messages was these places begin with a plan and input from the community before they methodically
began accumulating properties that worked for that plan. Purchasing property the City could not afford
and spending millions for a plan later was not prudent. She recalled a community member who spent
$25,000 on flower baskets a few years ago and citizens who fundraised to keep Yost Pool open. She
summarized citizens want the Council to lead and have a vision but also wanted them to be fiscally
responsible. She objected to spending $1.1 million on the Skipper's property when employee's wages had
not been reestablished and other budget cuts were threatened. She summarized she was not able to
purchase a new house because she got a windfall; she must stay and put a roof on the house she has.
10. PUBLIC COMMENT ON BUDGET CUTS.
Priya Cloutier, Edmonds, suggested Councilmembers who think not getting paid was not a big deal
return their salary and healthcare insurance to the City.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented on nearly the $500,000 that had been spent on the fiber optics
program. He anticipated if the Council were required to resell the Skipper's property even at a loss, there
would be some return on the money spent, unlike the fiber optics program. The City was investing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 19
$6,000- $7,000 /month on fiber optics with only continued promises it would generate revenue. He viewed
the fiber optics as speculation and did not support the City being in that business.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, proposed the budget include pay raises for employees who provide good service.
He pointed out the primary issue was increases in healthcare insurance premiums for union and non -union
employees. He anticipated the second quarter revenues would be higher.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested in the future budget cuts comply with the ordinance that states
financials for September 2009 and December 2009 be available on the website. She also suggested a
proforma be available on the website. Mayor Haakenson asked what she considered a proforma.
Councilmember Buckshnis answered the executive summary was a five year proforma. Mayor Haakenson
agreed to have the executive summary posted on the website as well as the December 2009 financials
when they were available.
Councilmember Orvis commented his primary interest during the budget process would be distinguishing
revenues particularly government service fees and parks fees in order to determine each department's
dependence on fees.
11. COUNCIL REVIEW OF LEVY OPTIONS.
Council President Ber ibeim announced May 1.8, 2010 was the deadline for Council action to place a levy
on the August ballot and August 3, 2010 was the deadline for placing a levy on the November ballot.
Council President Bernheim reviewed the history of the Council action with regard to the levy:
• April 21, 2009 the Council requested staff prepare two options, 1) a general operations levy, and
2) a dedicated parks /public safety /families option.
• The following week the Council took public comment and five people commented.
• The next week the Council again took public comment and a couple more people commented.
• May 19, 2009 the Council passed a resolution to have some kind of levy in 2009.
• June 16, 2009 staff returned with proposed language for only a general operations levy.
• June 23, 2009 the Council voted again to reaffirm their commitment to a levy.
• July 21, 2009 Councilmember Wilson and he presented a dedicated levy option for parks, public
safety and family /social services.
• July 21, 2009 the Council voted unanimously to put a levy option to the people.
• July 28, 2009 the Council voted 4 -2 to postpone placing a levy o the ballot to 2010.
• Since then the Edmonds School District and the Library District levies have passed.
Council President Bernheim explained annual property taxes increases were capped at 1%; however, the
City's expenses increase by a greater amount. Labor expenses, whether individual salaries or health
benefits or hiring more people, have historically increased by more than 1 % /year. He summarized the
City's budget shortfall was not due to irresponsible spending but because revenues did not keep pace with
expenses. As a result government must periodically ask the voters for tax increases.
Council President Bernheim voiced his support for giving the voters an opportunity to choose whether
their property taxes should increase via a targeted levy that supported parks, the Senior Center,
recreational activities. In 1 -2 weeks, he planned to present the Council a variant of the dedicated levy
Councilmember Wilson and he proposed last year in time to take action by May 18.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 20
Councilmember Wilson was discouraged the Council postponed the vote on the levy last year,
anticipating a levy on the November ballot was unlikely to succeed due to national elections that would
highlight the poor state of the economy. It was also unlikely a levy would be placed on the ballot in 2011
as four Councilmembers and the Mayor's position were up for election. Waiting to place a levy on the
ballot in 2012 would require the closure of a major portion of City government. If City pursued the
purchase of the Skipper's property, under the current projections, the City would be in the red in second
quarter of 2012 versus the fourth quarter if the property were not purchased. The Council could not
complete the 2011 -2012 budget without either closing a portion of City government or proposing a levy.
He anticipated there was little chance the voters would approve a levy unless it was done in August.
However, he found it irresponsible to purchase the Skipper's property and then ask for a levy.
Councilmember Orvis recalled the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) has shown a willingness to
place an increase in the vehicle license fee on the ballot. He asked whether the TBD would be meeting to
decide when that would be placed on the ballot. Council President Bernheim recalled at their last meeting
the TBD agreed to schedule a follow -up meeting once staff provided a list of priority projects. He agreed
to schedule a TBD meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE BRING THE COUNCIL TWO OPTIONS BY THE MAY 4
MEETING SO THAT PLACING A LEVY ON THE AUGUST BALLOT COULD BE DISCUSSED.
THE TWO OPTIONS WOULD INCLUDE A TARGETED OPTION AND A GENERAL
OPERATIONS OPTION.
Councilmember Wilson commented it would be a tight timeline although much of the work had been
done. The Finance Committee would need to meet outside the regular schedule and he anticipated the
process would be to coalesce the data that had previously been prepared and work with Mr. Hines to
update the numbers.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested each Councilmember have an understanding of the composition of
the forecasts.
Council President Bemheim encouraged Councilmembers to caucus with each other outside Council
meetings and to review the materials presented by the Citizen Levy Review Committee and the two levy
options presented to the Council in 2009, 1) a general operations levy and 2) a modified general with
provision for police, Senior Center, and other social and family services. Although the actual 2009 budget
numbers had yet to be completed, he assumed they would be similar to those presented last year and
clearly the City's financial situation was dire, originating from the law that caps property tax increases at
1% unless approved by voters. He did not support delaying politically difficult decisions such as a levy
until the Council had absolute confidence in the financials.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what a targeted levy would fund. Councilmember Peterson suggested the
Council caucus and the Finance Committee prepare options. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern
with the Finance Committee developing a targeted levy without input from the Council regarding what
they wanted to fund via a levy.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented things had changed significantly since last year with the sale of
the Fire Department and 54 fewer employees. She was uncertain a decision regarding a levy could be
made within one month, noting there also had not been input from the public.
Councilmember Wilson noted Councilmember Buckshnis participated as a citizen on the Levy Review
Committee. The Committee formed eight groups and all eight recommended proceeding with a levy. As
part of that process, the Council stated several policy positions including that one of the purposes of a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 21
levy would be to build up one month of ending cash balance. Another area of primary interest was
technology. He wanted to focus on public safety and parks. Council President Bernheim wanted to focus
on parks. He suggested the Finance Committee start with the Mayor's option as the general operations
levy and the modified general as the targeted levy. The Finance Committee should determine the length
of time before another levy would be necessary which would dictate the amount of the levy. He recalled
under last year's scenario a $3.75 million levy would be required to reach 2014; the removal of Fire
Department would reduce that amount. He recognized the Finance Committee may need to meet outside
the regular schedule to meet the May 4 deadline.
Council President Bernheim questioned whether it was possible to get financial documents that reflected
the City's future cash flow needs without the Fire Department expenses and whether staff would be
available to assist the Finance Committee before May 4. Mayor Haakenson anticipated the Finance
Committee could readily accumulate the information available to the Levy Review Committee and deduct
the Fire Department expenses. Staff could assist if needed.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked when the December 2009 quarterly financials would be available.
Mayor Haakenson answered when it was completed, it would be provided to the Council. He commented
the numbers would be very similar to the proforma provided to the Council dated March 15, 2010.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern with the broadness of the targeted levy. He suggested further
information may be necessary from the Council before May 4. Council President Bernheim advised the
topic was on next week's and the May 4 agenda.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, reported 200 people attended the second annual luncheon and Downtown
Edmonds Merchants Fashion Show at the new Yacht Club on April 17 and many of the attendees shopped
in downtown Edmonds after the show. She commended Petra Rousu, Savvy Traveler, and Denise at
Cynderellies Closet, who chaired the event. She echoed Councilmember Wilson's disappointment that the
Council postponed a levy last year after the Citizen Levy Review Committee recommended a levy. She
was concerned with Council meeting the May deadline for the August ballot and urged Council to work
together. She anticipated citizens would be willing to pay for services and amenities and that a levy could
be successful with the Council's leadership and community meetings to educate the public regarding the
how the funds would be used and what services would be lost if voters did not approve the levy.
Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, announced via the leadership of Laura Spehar and many others, Edmonds
received its Backyard Wildlife Habitat Certification from the National Wildlife Federation. A celebration
will be held on Saturday at Yost Park from 11:00 — 4:00 coinciding with the Watershed Fun Fest and cake
cutting at 3:00 p.m. He noted the Consent Agenda included a Proclamation in honor of Native Plant
Appreciation Week; as part of that celebration the official opening ceremony for the Willow Creek
Habitat Native Plant Demonstration will occur on Sunday, April 25 from 1:00 - 3:30 with ribbon cutting
at 1:00 and maps to tour local homes with backyard habitats. Edmonds received the Backyard Wildlife
Habitat Certification in less than two years, a short period of time compared to the length of time it has
taken other communities to receive certification.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported he attended the Edmonds School District workshop last week where
there was discussion regarding placing a supplementary levy on the August ballot. The consensus at that
meeting was the August ballot was preferable. Next, he reported King County would be making a
decision regarding the Shoreline jail site during the third or fourth quarter this year. He also reported a
citizen group was meeting with Finance Director Lorenzo Hines regarding the City's finances.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 22
13. QUARTERLY UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES OF CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY AND
SUSTAINABLE EDMONDS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave reported on his conversations with Jeff Aken, Project Manager, Cascade
Land Conservancy (CLC), regarding the livability assessment. As part of the Leadership City
commitment, the City is entitled to 25 hours of dedicated CLC staff time to support a project of the City's
choice. They have discussed having CLC assist with design of Five Corners and Westgate neighborhood
centers or the transitional area on Hwy. 99. It may be possible to supplement CLC's hours with a small
amount of money for a consultant to assist with that process. He offered to have further discussions with
Mr. Aken and make a presentation to the Community Services /Development Services Committee next
month. He advised neighborhood center design was also a priority for the Economic Development
Commission (EDC).
Councilmember Peterson requested a representative of the EDC be included in emails or attended the
meetings with CLC. Mr. Chave relayed his intent to involve the EDC.
Todd Cloutier, Operations Director, Sustainable Edmonds, explained Sustainable Edmonds was an all
volunteer, non profit organization committed to finding ways to make Edmonds a more sustainable
community. He presented the first quarterly update of the Save Energy Now program, a program the
Council voted to support with $5000 in funding last December. He displayed a comparison of 2008 and
2009 electricity and natural gas consumption. He displayed a comparison of average 2008 and 2009
commercial and residential electricity and gas utility bills, approximately $9000 /year for a business and
$1900 /year for a residence. A 10% savings on utilities represents approximately a $4 million "stimulus"
package. Edmonds citizens spent $38 million on utilities in 2009. Saving 10% frees up money for better
uses and supports the local economy.
The purpose of the Save Energy Now program was a pilot project to find the most cost effective ways for
homes and businesses in Edmonds to reduce utility usage via 10 homes and 10 businesses participating in
a pilot program. The Council funding is used to partially offset the cost of a comprehensive energy audit.
The audits are useful in identifying and prioritizing energy savings actions by a homeowner. The Audit
contractor, Eco -Fab of Seattle, was selected in a competitive bid process in January. The first audits
began in February. Based on what the auditor finds, the participants then begin taking action to reduce
their usage as much as possible, for as little investment as possible with a goal of at least a 10% sustained
savings on their utility bills.
During the program, which lasts for one full year, Sustainable Edmonds tracks participants' progress in
lowering their bills. They also set up an online blog (hit : /ledmondsener� .b�logspot.co@ where lessons
learned by participants are posted for all in Edmonds to use as a roadmap to their own savings. They also
email this information out to the Sustainable Edmonds email list of friends, which is about 200 families
strong, and copies are sent out as press releases to local media outlets.
He reported that just two months into the program the initial numbers are astounding. Annual usage is
already down by 10 %. That means, if participants stopped right now and returned to their old ways for the
rest of the year, at the end of the year, they already would have saved 10% on their bills. However, even
without the program, the average home in Edmonds has reduced their usage by 7% due to the mild
weather.
Only four businesses have signed up for the program. He encouraged business owners or landlords to
contact Sustainable Edmonds at SustainableEdmonds @gmail.com to enroll in the program.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 23
He explained energy audits have consistently identified un- insulated and /or leaking ducts in crawlspaces,
attic, floor and wall insulation below current code; and leaking doors, attic access hatches. Through
changes in habits alone, two participating homes saved over $200 in two months without any investment
in upgrades. Replacing current appliances with EnergyStar appliances can make homeowners eligible for
a State energy rebate.
Barriers to the success of their program include more business participants are needed and a significant
publicity effort will be needed to communicate lessons learned from the pilot project to the rest of the
City.
Councilmember Wilson recognized the program far exceeded the Council's expectations.
Councilmember Peterson commended Sustainable Edmonds for their efforts.
14. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF APRIL 13.2010.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Committee met with two labor negotiators. Staff also provided
the Committee information regarding health insurance transition. The Committee next discussed potential
cost cutting measures and asked Finance Director Lorenzo Hines to follow up on suggestions made
during audience comments. The Committee discussed the General Fund Report with Mr. Hines. Public
comment was accepted; Ron Wambolt commented on labor negotiations and internal versus external City
Attorney. Roger Hertrich commented on labor negotiations and suggested the Council consider an
internal City Attorney.
Community Services /Development Services Committee
Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee was provided an update regarding the Highway 99 /CG-
3 proposal for a new mixed use one. Next the Committee discussed with the new Building Official
Leonard Yarberry building code revisions to include reference to LEER standards. The final item was a
discussion on motorized mobile vendors. The Committee voiced their support for motorized mobile
vendors operating within the City and directed staff to develop a new section in ECC 4.12 for
consideration by the Committee before proceeding to the full Council.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported the Committee discussed the Snohomish County Regional Task
Force 2010 -2011 Interlocal Agreement and the Narcotics Task Force Interlocal Agreement which were
both approved on the Consent Agenda. Next, the Committee discussed fire sprinklers in new or
remodeled buildings and three builders provided input. The matter will be discussed again at the
Committee's next meeting. The Committee was also provided an update on problems other cities are
experiencing with emergency responder radio coverage.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported he met with Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congressman Inslee about the
demise of cities due to the lack of assistance from the State to continue providing services. These
representatives are well aware of the situation. He also spoke with them about a successful business
owner in Edmonds who has been unable to get a $65,000 loan and the need to help small business owners
in order to jumpstart the economy. All three said they were working on that issue but there was a
disconnect between Congress /Senate and the President. He had the same conversation with the staff of the
National Conference of Mayors in Washington DC who said he was one of many mayors who have
voiced similar concerns. In the past mayors have asked for money; this year mayors were asking for help
for small businesses.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 24
i [�Ki111L`[y l /[K /7► 1►� 111►(I Ify
Councilmember Peterson welcomed Fire Marshal John Westfall back after two years in Iraq and other
active military duty.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was disappointed much of the information regarding Skipper's was a
one -sided view of what was occurring at the Council and from that arose a series of emails and blog
entries.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas reported Councilmember Buckshnis and she will hold a Town Hall
meeting on Friday, April 30, 6:00 — 8:00 p.m. at Colonial Pantry in Firdale Village.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commended the Edmonds Police Department who participated in the
Special Olympics Tip a Cop event at the Red Robin in Lynnwood. All the tips the officers received were
donated to Special. Olympics. She recognized Assistant Chief Gannon who was serving and Sgt. Marsh
who organized the event.
Councilmember Wilson thanked Mayor Haakenson for his efforts in Washington DC. He expressed his
appreciation to Councilmember Fraley - Monillas for her apology for the disparaging remarks made to him
via email.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on a meeting she had with Portland's Mayor. Portland has developed
a draft plan that she planned to share with the Economic Development Commission. Portland is interested
in green technology, eco- tourism and bicycling.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 25