04/27/2010 City CouncilApril 27, 2010
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would meet in executive
session regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate. He stated the executive session was
scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room,
located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials present at the executive session were:
Mayor Haakenson, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Orvis,
Peterson and Wilson. Others present were Community Services /Economic Development Director
Stephen Clifton, Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh, and City Clerk Sandy Chase.
The executive session concluded at 7:04 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag
salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Haakenson explained the topic of the executive session was a counter offer from Cascade Bank on
the Skipper's property. The bank has given the Council 72 hours to accept the terms or counter back. The
only material change is a reduction in the amount of time the bank gave the Council to make a decision
from 90 days to 60 days. The City Attorney has not had an opportunity to review the counter offer. The
Council has scheduled an executive session on Friday, April 30 at 9:00 a.m. in either Council Chambers
or the Brackett Room at City Hall if court is in session. He assumed the Council would take action
following the executive session as the terms of the counter offer require the Council to respond to the
bank by 2:00 p.m. on Friday.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 1
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Wilson requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember
Fraley- Monillas and Council President Bernheim requested Item H be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2010
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #118441 THROUGH #118579 DATED APRIL 22, 2010
FOR $779,781..34. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #49231
THROUGH #49266 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OF APRIL 1. - APRIL 15, 2010 FOR
$622,945.37.
E. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
— APRIL, 2010.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS FOR THE STORMWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE.
G. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS
EXERCISE EQUIPMENT.
I. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF LOYALTY DAY, MAY 1, 2010.
ITEM B: APPROVAL OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2010
Councilmember Wilson advised he was not aware of the April 9 meeting and did not attend. He asked the
purpose of the meeting. Councilmember Plunkett responded there had been discussion regarding a
process for developing a vision including 1) whether to spend the money and 2) who would drive that
process. The members of Imagine Edmonds are experienced in community development and community
visioning and he wanted to hear from them with regard to visioning. He had planned to meet with them
and decided to open the meeting to everyone. The City Clerk provided notice of the meeting and
approximately 15 people attended. At the conclusion of the meeting, he encouraged Imagine Edmonds to
talk with Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and the Economic
Development Commission to determine if there was a role for Imagine Edmonds in a visioning process.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether any action was taken at the meeting. Councilmember Plunkett
advised there was not, it was for information only. He prepared minutes which were included in the
packet. Councilmember Wilson referred to a statement in the minutes, "Councilmember Plunkett
concluded the meeting by saying everyone would have a future opportunity. The next task is to determine
how Imagine Edmonds is coordinated and channeled into a process of visioning in association with the
other groups and organizations that are involved in the city..." commenting it appeared Imagine Edmonds
would be coordinated/channeled into a process and if that was not the case, the minutes may need to be
revised. Councilmember Plunkett was satisfied with the statement in the minutes.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the meeting was called by Councilmember Plunkett or Council
President Bernheim. Council President Bernheim responded he did not participate in the planning and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 2
assumed it was noticed the same as all other special meetings. Councilmember Wilson asked whether
proper notice of the meeting was provided. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained Councilmember Plunkett
requested she announce a meeting and the purpose. A special meeting notice was prepared and submitted
to the media, posted in public building and posted on the City's website. The request was made on
Wednesday and the notice went out on Wednesday for the meeting on Friday.
Councilmember Wilson advised he did not receive notice of the meeting. He explained Councilmember
Plunkett sent out an email announcing the meeting but left off Councilmember Peterson and himself. The
Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) has specific criteria that must be met for a special meeting, l) the
presiding officer must call the meeting or a majority of the members of the governing body, 2) notice
must be delivered to each local newspaper, radio and TV station with at least 24 hours notice, and 3)
notice must be delivered to all members of the governing body. By definition, at least of the two criteria
and perhaps more were not met and thus it was not an open meeting. It is a violation of the OPMA for
four members to convene for the express purpose of conducting City business and proper notice was not
provided. Proper notice would have been provided if Councilmember Plunkett had included
Councilmember Peterson and him in the email announcing the meeting. He objected to approving minutes
of a meeting that blatantly flouted state law.
Councilmember Peterson advised he was not informed of the meeting, did not attend and therefore could
not approve the minutes. He recalled an issue arose a few months ago over an alleged violation of the
OPMA, cautioning the City did not want to become known as a city that violates the OPMA. He was
troubled by two Councilmembers being expressly left off emails regarding the meeting, commenting
although the Council had disagreements, omitting Councilmembers from a meeting was not a good way
to govern. He suggested investigating how this occurred and appropriate steps be taken to ensure it did
not happen again in the future.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented she saw the meeting notice on the City's website. She did
not consider it a City Council meeting; she attended the meeting to hear about Imagine Edmonds. The
meeting consisted of questions and answers and no decisions were made.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged Councilmembers Wilson and Peterson's concerns and suggested
if the Council was uncomfortable with the minutes for the reasons stated, the Council not vote tonight and
allow City Attorney Scott Snyder to comment on the minutes. He reiterated his intent was to invite the
public to a meeting to hear about Imagine Edmonds.
Council President Bernheim suggested it was not necessary for Mr. Snyder to comment. He accepted full
responsibility for the special meeting, noting he did not appreciate the significance of his own attendance
at the meeting. He asked if Ms. Chase had provided email notice to Councilmembers of the meeting. Ms.
Chase explained the notice was the same as has been provided for other meetings such as the Town Hall
meetings Councilmembers Buckshnis and Fraley- Monillas hold or when Council President Bernheim
holds meetings at his office. The meeting was noticed in the event a quorum of the Council was present.
This is the first time minutes have been prepared because it was the first time a quorum of
Councilmembers attended. The minutes were not prepared because action was taken; it was only to
document discussion at the meeting. It has not been her past practice to send meeting notices to the City
Council because meetings are typically well published. The difference may be that this meeting arose
rather quickly. Council President Bernheim offered to establish a process to ensure this did not occur
again.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when discussing a subcommittee meeting with Councilmember
Wilson, she mentioned she was attending a meeting with Imagine Edmonds. She did not recall how she
was notified of the meeting but recalled talking with Council President Bernheim.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 3
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas advised there was no quorum present at the meeting; Council President
Bemheim left the meeting after about five minutes.
Councilmember Plunkett advised the intent of the minutes was to document discussion at the meeting;
minutes were not required. The original intent was a meeting between Imagine Edmonds and him; he
opened it up to the public and prepared minutes.
Councilmember Wilson relayed the minutes state elected officials present were Michael Plunkett, Steve
Bemheim, Adrienne Fraley - Monillas and Diane Buckshnis. Although he did learn of the meeting ahead of
time, he did not learn of it with 24 hours notice. He would have liked to have attended but was concerned
his attendance would be a violation of the OPMA. He read from the OPMA, "A special meeting may be
called at anytime by the presiding officer of the governing body or a majority of the members by
delivering written notice personally, by mail, by fax or by electronic mail to each member of the
governing body," which he noted did not occur in this instance. The OPMA goes on to state, "such notice
must be delivered at least 24 hours before the time of such meeting specified." He concluded the meeting
was clearly a violation of the OPMA.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, NOT TO ADOPT THE MINUTES AND TO APPOINT THE CITY COUNCIL
PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE WHAT HAPPENED.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with appointing someone to investigate who although he has a
high level of integrity, was a party to the meeting that violated the OPMA. He questioned whether
Council President Bemheim, Councilmembers Plunkett, Fraley - Monillas or Buckshnis should be
conducting the investigation. Councilmember Plunkett suggested Mr. Snyder conduct an investigation.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND ORVIS VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS, PETERSON, AND WILSON VOTING
NO.
Council President Bernheim advised he would report his findings to the Council.
Mayor Haakenson noted at some point the minutes of the meeting needed to be approved. Ms. Chase
agreed.
ITEM H: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CHATTEL DEED RELATING TO
THE RETURN OF A 1938 FORD FIRE ENGINE (MODEL: FIREEX VIN#:1184892) TO
THE EDMONDS FIRE SAFETY FOUNDATION.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas pointed out this 1938 fire engine is owned by the City and displayed by
the Fire Safety Foundation in parades and various other functions. This item is to return the fire engine to
the Foundation; however, they have no place to house the engine. Mayor Haakenson advised the
Foundation donated the fire engine to the City and the agreement states if the City no longer wants the
engine, it is to be returned to the Foundation. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas anticipated if the Council
agreed to return the fire engine to the Foundation, it would not be in the Edmonds parades and would no
longer be stored in Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson advised it was unknown where the engine would be
stored; there is a short -term plan to store it at a residence in Edmonds. He anticipated the engine would
still be in the parade and at other events. By returning the engine to the Foundation, the City would no
longer be responsible for maintenance or storage.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked how long the fire engine would be housed in Edmonds. Mayor
Haakenson responded it was not certain that it would be housed in Edmonds at all; it was not the City's
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 4
responsibility to determine where it would be stored. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas advised she would
not support this item as she was opposed to getting rid of the fire engine due to its importance to the
City's history.
Mayor Haakenson asked where Councilmember Fraley- Monillas would propose to store the fire engine; it
was currently housed in Fire Station 17 where Snohomish County Fire District 1 now has their
equipment. Public Works Director Noel Miller advised it was moved from Fire Station 17 during the last
week to a temporary location at the old Public Works site.
Councilmember Peterson advised the Foundation has the same dilemma with regard to where to store the
engine. He made a plea to anyone in Edmonds who could store the fire engine to contact the Edmonds
Fire Foundation.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM H.
Council President Bernheim advised he also would not support the motion and suggested identifying a
storage location for the next couple months due to the fire engine's historical value.
Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Miller to comment on whether there was adequate space at the old Public
Works site to store the fire engine. Mr. Miller reported several items were moved to make space for the
engine and to keep it out of the weather. Its current location will hamper operations. Another option
would be to find commercial storage space to rent; however, the City's Fleet Manager has not been able
to find a commercial space within the City thus it would need to be stored outside the City.
Councilmember Plunkett commented several Councilmembers had been contacted by a representative of
the Fire Foundation. He asked if Mr. Miller had contact with the Fire Foundation. Mr. Miller answered
Fleet Maintenance Manager Dave Sittauer has been in contact with the Foundation.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how long the City has been housing the fire engine. Mayor Haakenson
answered it has been stored at Fire Station 17 since 2004. It was moved because Fire District 1 located
additional equipment at that station and there was no longer space for the 1938 fire engine. He noted the
fire engine has been a maintenance issue for the City.
Council President Bernheim suggested delaying the return of the fire engine to the Fire Foundation for a
couple months to allow investigation of other storage options. Mayor Haakenson suggested removing the
item from the agenda and reschedule it in two months. Council President Bernheim agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
3. FUTURE OF THE SENIOR CENTER
Council President Bernheim explained this was an opportunity for the Senior Center to provide an update
regarding information provided at the Council retreat including the 1975 resolution that created the Senior
Center.
Farrell Fleming, Executive Director, South County Senior Center (SCSQ, expressed the Center's
appreciation for the City's:
• Initial funds to purchase the property
• Ongoing 38+ years of financial support
• Ongoing provision of the Senior Center building and parking lot and maintenance
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 5
Annual grant of $60,000
Role in assisting the Center over the last two years
Ongoing help and support of City staff
He described the public- non - profit partnership:
• U.S. cities definition of recreational services as part of the mandate of services to provide to the
public City- owned /city -run senior centers
• Senior Centers are the primarily mechanism to provide those services to seniors
• The City's cost to operate the Senior Center would be approximately 10 times its present
contribution
• Greater range of services than the City could provide
• Alternate source of funding available to the Senior Center that are not available to the City
• Snohomish County is a unique in that there are five old, large non - profit senior centers that were
originally regional
He provided the history of the SCSC:
• 1968 — the SCSC begins at the waterfront site in the building that is now the Thrift Store
• 1972 — The site is purchased for $400,000 with the City contributing $100,000 with the
understanding it would be maintained as a recreational site and specifically a Senior Center
• 1976 -1980 — Grants obtained and the current Center constructed
• 1997 -1998 — Mayor's Task Force formed to discuss the future of the Senior Center. The Task
Force defined three possible futures, 1) keep the existing structure, refurbish as necessary and
sensible, 2) tear down the north building and build a 2 -story building, and 3) tear down and start
over. Although the Task Force recommended option 3, for financial reasons option 1 has been the
reality
• 2004 -2009 — CDBG grants for building improvements
• 2007 -2009 — Change in the Center's governance
He described current programming that includes, 1) health, wellness and nutrition, 2) social
services /outreach and 3) education, recreation and social gatherings. The Center has over 350 volunteers
and hundreds of programs available annually.
He described the Center's clientele:
• Present: the majority are 75+ years, modest income, 70% women, age ranges from 60 -100 years,
3,000 participants annually
• Future: 85+ years, fastest growing as boomers finally arrive
• Current demography: In Edmonds 16.6% are 65+ years old, Washington 11.2% and Florida 18%
• Edmonds future demography: 18% 65+ years old
He described impacts of the Senior Center:
• United Way asks the Center to decrease isolation and increases social connection
• Providing seniors the best, maybe only, meal of the day
• Learning new skills
• Putting old skills to work
• Strengthening sense of self -worth
• The second home for many seniors and the first for some
He described the Center's finances and funding:
• Annual budget: $500,000
• City grant: $60,000
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 6
• Snohomish County: $70,500
• United Way: $25,000
• Lynnwood: $5,000
• Total public funding: $160,000
• Fundraising: $350,000 annual (Thrift Store $100,000 with the remainder from banquets,
rentals /fees, donations, memberships, events, etc.)
He described future short term plans:
• Maintenance and survival mode like all other governments and non - profits and many businesses
• Maintain public funding
• Increase fundraising — Mr. Farrell announced a Health Fair on April 30 that was anticipated to net
approximately $10,000
• Modest improvements to present building via a CTED grant
• Strengthen partnerships with colleges and other senior centers
He described future long term planning:
• New state of the art senior and community center — Edmonds residents deserve no less
• Continuing the Center's waterfront presence
• Get boomers actively engaged
• Well developed volunteer program in new areas
• Creative and innovative programs
Mr. Farrell concluded there are no specific plans due to the number of unknowns including the state of the
building, future development of the waterfront area, etc. He advised the Center is interested in working
with the City and the Port to define the role of a senior /community center in that development.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas explained she became involved with the Senior Center as a volunteer a
few years ago and recognized the importance of providing services for seniors. She explained for many of
the seniors who attend the Center's lunches, it is the only hot, balanced meal they receive each day. She
encouraged everyone to belong to the Center, noting they do not discriminate on age. She announced the
Center's annual fundraising auction and dinner on Friday, June 25.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she got involved with the Senior Center to provide assistance with
their website. She assured the Center was fun, it offers Wii Sports, has WiFi and they are on Facebook
under South County Senior Center. She commented it was amazing how many people were at the Center
every day.
4. COUNCIL PRESIDENT COMMENTS ON BUDGET OUTLOOK.
Council President Bernheim explained this presentation was in response to comments that the City was
headed toward bankruptcy. He displayed and reviewed the Executive Summary - Current Forecast
prepared by staff that illustrates beginning cash, annual revenues, expenses by function and ending cash
in the 2009 budget, 2009 actuals, 2010 budget and 2010 -2016 outlook. He explained beginning cash plus
annual revenues adds up to the funds available for expenditures. He referred to expenses by function in
the Executive Summary, explaining for the purpose of this presentation, he divided them into labor and
non - labor. Labor costs include wages, salaries, benefits, health insurance, etc. He acknowledged the City
had highly experienced, professional staff.
Council President Bernheim displayed a similar chart (that he entitled the Steve Bernheim balanced
budget) in which he compared for 2010 -2016 with the same annual revenue projections and non -labor
costs and assumptions that the City had a $2 million reserve each year and no tax increase between now
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 7
and 2016. He referred to numbers on his chart that represented the labor component of each annual budget
assuming a balance budget with a $2 million annual reserve and no tax increase, an amount significantly
lower than staff's projection. He compared the labor costs in his chart to the City's projection,
commenting without a tax increase, the City would be unable to pay the projected labor costs and provide
necessary services. He summarized according to his chart there would only be $16 million available for
labor costs in 2014 compared to $20 million in the City's projection.
Council President Bernheim displayed a chart illustrating the projected labor increase each year, 6.7% in
2011, 4.4% in 2012 and 5.7% in 2013, compounded annually. He concluded labor costs were one of the
primary reasons for the large budget gap. He assured bankruptcy was not likely because the City could
not continue to pay those wages without a tax increase; however, serious budget shortages were highly
likely. He summarized the budget gap was not due to any single program. He acknowledged although the
City's projections were conservative, they revealed the City did not have money for anything because
labor costs were projected to "go through the roof."
Councilmember Wilson referred to Council President Bernheim's chart that shows a $2.5 million ending
cash balance in 2014, noting the Council has a policy that the target ending cash balance in reserves is
equal to one month's total operating expenses or approximately $3 million. Council President Bernheim
pointed out on his chart the ending cash balance was $3 million in 2015. Councilmember Wilson pointed
out the $4 -5 million difference between staff's projected labor and " Bernheim's balanced budget"
represented approximately 25% of the labor costs. For perspective, the City has approximately 200
employees, the largest labor line item is the Police Department that has about 54 uniformed police
officers or about 25% of the labor force. For perspective, the difference is approximately equivalent to
laying off all the uniformed officers. He assured that would not be done but the gap is that dire.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Executive Summary — Current Forecast was for the City's
operating budget. There was another budget for capital expenditures with revenues such as REST.
Council President Bernheim agreed there were other funds available for asset purchases, roads, parks, and
other special purposes. The Executive Summary is for General Fund monies only. He compared the
General Fund to a person's operating account and capital funds to a person's IRA.
Councilmember Peterson commented the labor increase in the Executive Summary — Current Forecast did
not represent the same number of employees in the next six years. It included filling positions that have
been left vacant to cover budget shortfalls in the past. Council President Bernheim acknowledged there
were many components of the labor budget. The City, under Mayor Haakenson's leadership, has not filled
several executive positions in the exercise of prudent budget management. The forecast assumes those
positions are filled. The projections also reflect the increase in medical premiums. His goal was to show
the information in a simplified form without a tax increase. The choice without a tax increase is a 25%
lower overall labor budget in 2016.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she met with Mayor Haakenson on Friday to review the Executive
Summary — Current Forecast in detail. She agreed the 6.7% increase included filling three positions as
well as restoring the prior year's budget cuts. She pointed out the Executive Summary — Current Forecast
was a forecast based on very conservative revenues and very aggressive expenses. She and Mayor
Haakenson have agreed once the fourth quarter 2009 financials, the first quarter 2010 financials and the
fiscal year end are available, a high and low forecast will be developed to assist citizens in understanding
the operating budget. She acknowledged forecasts change based on performance such as holiday sales and
the Cash for Clunkers Program. For example, the Executive Summary — Current Forecast includes a 1.3%
decrease in 2010 sales tax projection. She agreed there was a separate capital budget.
Councilmember Wilson explained when the Fire Department rolling stock was sold to Fire District 1, the
funds were placed in the General Fund, not a capital fund. The funds have been set aside within the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 8
General Fund to a segregated account, similar to the Emergency Fund which is segregated within the
General Fund. To the union and non - represented employees, he assured the Council was not proposing a
25% pay cut for the same amount of work. If the City's labor budget was reduced by 25 %, he assumed
there would be 25% fewer employees.
Mayor Haakenson agreed labor expenses consisted of more than wages; it was a projection of wages,
benefits, State retirement plan contributions, and filling the vacant positions. The wage component of the
labor expense is currently projected to increase by approximately 3.5% over the next 5 years. He pointed
out the actual wages are unknown because the labor contracts have not yet been settled for even the next
three years. He relayed conversations with citizens over the past week regarding how wages are
determined for City employees; at least one person envisioned that he made that decision. He explained
only two members of the Council have participated in labor negotiations, Councilmembers Plunkett and
Orvis. The other five Councilmembers have not yet had an opportunity to participate. He explained labor
negotiations begin by the Council meeting in executive session where they are provided information
regarding each labor union's requests and information regarding other cities' recently settled labor
contracts; the Council then instructs the City's labor negotiator on the next step. The Council eventually
decides the wages and benefits for each labor union. After all the labor contracts are settled, the Council
decides the wages for the non -union employees. He summarized the estimated increase in wages was
dependent on the end result of labor negotiations.
Mayor Haakenson referred to the labor projection that increases from approximately $17 million in 2010
to $22 million in 2016, pointing out there was the same increase from 2003 to 2009, from $18 million in
2003 to $24 million in 2009. He summarized the City's labor budget historically increased approximately
$1 million per year. There was nothing striking about the labor increases; it was based on historical data
and was similar to increases in other cities. He explained while the City's labor budget increased to a high
of $24 million in 2009, it has dropped to $17 million in 2010 as a result of contracting with Fire District
1. Even with the annual labor increases, the City's labor budget in 2016 would still not reach 2007 levels.
Mayor Haakenson referred to a question posed by Council. President Bernheim in the agenda memo,
should the City abandon plans to enhance the waterfront area in order to raise city payroll more than five
percent per year, compounded annually. In response, Mayor Haakenson explained these were two
separate issues. No Councilmember has yet made a case regarding how the potential purchase enhances
the waterfront. The Council has the oversight and decision - making ability to address project labor costs
when they negotiate the labor contracts and when they deliberate on the 2011 -2012 budget.
5. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS /REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL
LABOR NEGOTIATOR TO ASSIST WITH CITY LABOR NEGOTIATIONS.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, THAT CITY STAFF PREPARE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/REQUEST
FOR PROPOSALS FOR A PROFESSIONAL LABOR NEGOTIATOR TO ASSIST WITH CITY
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Finance Committee had presentations from two labor negotiators.
She asked whether this request was for additional proposals and fees. Council President Bernheim
responded he invited the two people that presented at the Finance Committee meeting to answer questions
and describe the services they offered during labor negotiations to assist the City in achieving its
negotiating goals. He acknowledged he had not participated in any labor negotiations other than
approving the contracts the year following his election. His motion was not to hire a negotiator but to
solicit bids for consideration by the Council. He summarized there was no cost associated with the
solicitation of bids other than staff time. He offered to write the request for proposals.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 9
Councilmember Buckshnis requested City Attorney Scott Snyder be included in the request for
Qua] ifications/Proposals, advising Human. Resources was uncertain the amount paid to Mr. Snyder for
labor negotiation services in the past.
Councilmember Plunkett was interested in hearing what other labor negotiators offered as well as to have
an opportunity to compare their services with Mr. Snyder. He was comfortable with the services provided
by Mr. Snyder and would have to find a compelling reason, financially or otherwise, to make a change.
He emphasized the contracts were ultimately the Council's decision. Council President Bernheim assured
the intent of his motion was to solicit proposals.
Councilmember Wilson concurred with Councilmember Plunkett, commenting he did not have any
overwhelming reason to displace Mr. Snyder from the process. He was open to the possibility but did not
anticipate it would happen. Unless a majority of the Council was interested in displacing Mr. Snyder, he
anticipated the motion would simply create work. As a participant on the labor side of negotiations at the
Community College, he explained when management brought in an outside labor negotiator, the union .
brought in their own outside labor negotiator, a process that only served to ratchet up the contentiousness
of labor negotiations. If the unions planned to bring in an outside negotiator, he may agree to the City
hiring a labor negotiator. He was hopeful negotiations could remain amicable and local.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented she was willing to consider new things. Although she had
not been involved in the City negotiations, she had a good perspective after having been involved in
negotiations for the past 30 years. She explained one of the problems with bringing in an outside
negotiator was they did not have the history, personal relationships or understanding of the past and future
budget challenges. She summarized it did not necessarily improve negotiations to bring in strangers. It
may be a better use of resources to describe the Council's goals to Mr. Snyder, Human Resources
Director Debi Humann and Mayor Haakenson.
Councilmember Peterson clarified Mr. Snyder was a professional labor negotiator. While in theory it may
be helpful to bring in a fresh face, he found the timing of this agenda item very poor; a discussion .
regarding bringing in what some may consider to be a heavy hitter from the outside to squeeze labor
followed by a discussion about a spending $1 million on property. If the Council wanted to spend $1
million on a piece of property, he did not want the prerequisite to be a Council discussion regarding how
to save money on labor costs. He concluded this did not send a good message to City staff who have
made sacrifices in the last several years. He agreed with Councilmember Wilson that this scenario,
discussing wage cuts while spending money on property, would result in the unions bringing in their own
heavy hitter from outside. He acknowledged while the Council's intent may not be to cut wages, that was
the perception. He did not support the motion.
Councilmember Wilson observed although well intentioned, it would be a waste of time to solicit
proposals and hear presentations from labor negotiators. He did not support the motion and urged
Councilmembers who had no intent to remove Mr. Snyder from this process to also vote no.
Mayor Haakenson commented this would be the fifth or sixth negotiation he has participated in. Twice in
the past the City has hired outside negotiators other than Mr. Snyder and both times in his view it was a
mistake because the labor unions did the same and negotiations were not amicable. He invited the Council
to ask questions of Ms. Humann who was present; she will be tasked with doing the RFP along with the
other tasks the two person Human Resources Department does on a daily basis.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS,
BUCKSHNIS, WILSON, PETERSON, AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 10
6. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF SKIPPER'S PROPERTY.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council received 22 emails; 10 in favor of the purchase and 12 opposed to
the purchase.
George Murray, Edmonds, read a letter from Rick Steves, Edmonds, that stated any time a community
worked together to create more public space, the entire community benefits and the benefits last forever.
In his experience with the joy and vibrancy that public spaces provide communities throughout Europe,
smartly used public space were a gift that keeps on giving. Given the central location of the Skipper's
property, the creativity of community members with a vision for Edmonds and assuming the property was
available at a fair market price, he viewed not purchasing the site as a lost opportunity. The community
needed to recognize the potential Edmonds has to make the waterfront the best waterfront on Puget Sound
and exercise bold and visionary leadership to make that a reality. He urged the Council not to pass up this
rare opportunity even if the exact use had not yet been determined. This is a chance for a zone for
residents and visitors to celebrate how Main Street, the business community, beaches, mountain views
and ferries merge in a manner that makes one happy to be in Edmonds.
Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, implored the Council to seriously consider purchasing the Skipper's
property. She recalled the bold step to purchase the property south of the ferry terminal in the 1980s and
the wonderful park on that site. She doubted anyone regretted that purchase. She encouraged the Council
to look to the future.
Stacie Hearst, Edmonds, pointed out the Skipper's property was not on the waterfront, it was near the
waterfront, an island adjacent to a Department of Transportation property. As a member of a City
committee, she had a better knowledge than most about the City's budget challenges. Last year the City
faced the closure of Yost Pool; it was saved by private donations. It was unknown how long that would
continue. The City continues to experience cuts in service, staff furloughs, and unfilled positions. There
have been discussions of a levy to pay for existing operations. She summarized the City was having
trouble paying for what it had; the Council wanted to add to that burden. She asked how the property
would be used, how the City would pay for it, and how it would be maintained. If the Council purchased
the Skipper's property, they were sending the message to voters that everything is fine financially; the
citizens know otherwise.
John Reed, Edmonds, urged the Council to consider acquisition of the Skipper's property, commenting
it was an opportunity that should not be passed up. Ownership of the property allows the City to control
its use. Thousands of potential visitors drive past the site as they travel on the ferry and redevelopment by
the City of this gateway entrance would be a great benefit now and in the future. Failure to acquire the
site could result in its purchase by someone whose development goals are inconsistent with the vision for
the near waterfront currently being discussed by the City Council and its appointed Economic
Development Commission. A plan for the property other than a park or other public use to facilitate grant
funding does not need to be in place before acquisition occurs although development of a plan should be
priority. Once the City owns the property, financing can be offset by parking revenue while a plan for the
site is developed. His understanding was the bank recently declined an offer of $1 million for the
property, the assessed value of the land is $1,062,000 and it sold for $1 million in 2006; therefore the
offer of $1.1 million was not unreasonably high. The acquisition funds would not come from the General
Fund; possible funding sources include financing the transaction with BEET funds, bond financing,
grants, or funds received from the Fire District 1 transaction. A public - private partnership for
redevelopment is a possibility. Funds to explore the acquisition, the $50,000 earnest money and
refundable deposits and other costs up to another $50,000 could come from the General Fund. He
summarized neither Police or other City staff would be sacrificed to fund this transaction. Two years ago
before the economic downturn, the Council considered the purchase of the Antique Mall property to the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page l I
point of a possible appraisal. That opportunity was passed up and is no longer available. He urged the
Council not to make that same mistake while the Skipper's property is available.
Don Hall, Edmonds, questioned whether the Council had considered other ways to control development
of the Skipper's property such as zoning to prevent a lot line to lot line building. He pointed out other
communities such as Leavenworth control building design and landscaping to achieve their vision. He
suggested the Council work with a developer to accomplish some of the City's goals such as public art,
Welcome to Edmonds signage, etc. Working with a developer would save the City the cost of acquisition,
development and maintenance. He pointed out the City was already reducing maintenance of its parks and
did not have adequate funds to maintain public buildings. To those who view this site as an economic
gateway, he pointed out only a small percentage of ferry riders have not already committed to a
destination when they leave the ferry. The property is bordered by what will soon be double railroad
tracks to the west and a street where transit will have approximately 100 buses per day making a right
turn onto Main Street. He expressed concern with air and noise pollution in the area and with children
playing in a park on the site. He doubted people would visit a park on this site when there was a
waterfront park within 1/2 - 1 block.
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he was usually in favor of purchasing property but the timing of this
purchase was terrible. He referred to his offers in the past to take the lead on an operations levy or a bond
to purchase the Antique Mall property. He anticipated if the City purchased the Skipper's property, a
subsequent operations levy would fail. Although he remained committed to passing a levy, he was less
inclined if the Council irresponsibly purchased the Skipper's property. He also anticipated the purchase of
the Skipper's property would have negative political ramifications. Although the property may be worth
much more in the future, the City could not afford to purchase it today. He urged the Council to run away
from this transaction as fast as possible.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, read a letter from Jim Underhill, Edmonds, a member of the Highway 99
Task Force that stated the Council is out of touch with regard to the business opportunity. He was stunned
with the Council's decision to purchase the Skipper's property and their explanations. The Council does
not understand the financial opportunity the property represents. A restaurant has been located on the site
due to, 1) ferry traffic, 2) the scuba park and 3) the beach. Washington State Ferry data shows that 2.1
million vehicles and 1.9 million passengers used the Edmonds - Kingston ferry in 2009. Added to the
numerous divers and beach goers, with no effort from any elected official, there were many people in that
area to visit a restaurant on the site. His research found Jack in the Box to be a performer on Wall Street,
sharing many of Edmonds residents' values such as sustainability and recycling, willingness to present a
new store design and work with staff to adjust their design. Jack in the Box wins awards for healthy
menus and developing a well trained and diverse workforce as well as bringing a strong community
commitment and resources. Jack in the Box would create new revenue for Edmonds. Mr. Underhill
suggested the Council and staff meet with Jack in the Box officials to identify a win -win solution.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, explained the real estate bubble hit Edmonds in 2005 -2007; the old Skipper's
property sold during that bubble in 2006 for $1 million. The property appreciated in 2007 but dropped in
value in 2008 and 2009. It is now worth less than $1 million. In response to the current Snohomish
County assessment that is in excess of $1 million, he pointed out Snohomish County's 2010 assessments
were established January 1, 2009 and the market has continued to decline.
Tom Sheehan, Edmonds, was surprised to learn that five Councilmembers had elected to spend $1.1
million for the Skipper's property without a plan for its use during a time when people were losing their
houses, real estate values continue to decline and the City was in a financial crisis.
Ron Clyborne, Edmonds, read a letter from the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Board of
Directors, expressing concern with, 1) the process that led to the Council's 5 -2 vote to pursue purchasing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 12
the Skipper's property for $1.1 million and 2) the fiscal prudence of such a purchase given the
acknowledged state of the City's budget and general economic conditions. It appears there is no stated
purpose for the purchase. No reason or goal for the purchase has been shared with taxpayers and the
City's Economic Development Commission, Comprehensive Plan, Parks Master Plan or other pertinent
planning bodies or documents did not include this property as a priority. With regard to the financial
feasibility and advisability of the purchase, the City's budget is under serious strain similar to others in
the public /private realm. At a time when the City is considering asking voters raising their taxes, it seems
ill advised to pursue a million dollar real estate transaction whether using one -time monies or counting on
scarce grants. Ongoing costs of development and maintenance would have to come from the threadbare
General Fund. The letter recalled Mayor Haakenson's statement at the monthly Chamber luncheon that
the City will be broke in two years. Given that dire forecast, it seems imprudent to consider actions that
may endanger all City services. The Chamber acknowledged the Council's well - placed intention with
regard to this area adjacent to the City's waterfront. The residents of Edmonds place great value on this
area that includes the Antique Mall, Harbor Square, and the Skipper's site and the Chamber shares that
view. However, they questioned the merits of the proposed purchase at this price and at this time. The
Chamber Board urged the Council to present a full accounting of the purpose, purchase details and
ongoing costs of the proposal for review by all Edmonds residents.
Bill Vance, Edmonds, expressed concern with the process. He questioned how the purchase fit into the
City's priorities and encouraged the Council to fully vet the unintended consequences of this purchase. He
referred to a suggestion that the site could be developed with parking with a park on top and the purchase
funded via parking fees, pointing out few people would pay to park in a parking lot on the site and walk to
shops downtown. He questioned why the Council would pursue purchasing the property without a plan,
why there was an urgent to purchase the property and whether there were other imminent purchasers for
this 1/3 acre site with poor access. Before committing to the purchase, he urged the Council to vet the
unintended consequences and take the time to do the appropriate due diligence.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, disagreed with the use of General Fund monies to purchase the small Skipper's
property. He spoke in favor of the City acquiring the property owned by Al Dykes, financed over a 10
year period via a bond and matching grants. He suggested the City conduct community meetings to gather
input on how that property could be developed.
Barbara Chase, Edmonds, commented the first meeting she attended when moving to Edmonds ten
years ago was in regard to the City's budget problems which illustrated budget problems were nothing
new. Several studies done regarding Edmonds cite the importance of the end of Main Street and the near
waterfront. She was disappointed two years ago when she learned the property had been purchased. After
attending a meeting regarding development of the site with 3 -story condominiums with view corridors,
she realized the property owner could develop the site however they wanted as long as they complied
with the City's regulations. Now the opportunity to purchase the site has arisen again and although there
was an economic downturn, the City needed to look to the future. She recognized $1 million was not an
insignificant sum, pointing out the City spent $250,000 on a skate park and purchased a park in South
Edmonds, sites that are now well used. She urged the public to review the budget and understand the
difference between General Fund and capital funds. To the question posed by a citizen regarding what
was the Council thinking, she said the Council was thinking of the future.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, thanked Council President Bernheim for setting the tenor of tonight's
meeting by his presentation. He relayed information provided by the Snohomish County Treasurer that
the City collected $1,070,400 in REET in 2009. He anticipated REET collections would improve in 2010.
He suggested REET funds were available for the purchase of the Skipper's property as well as grants to
repay those funds. He suggested the site could be developed with landscaping and a glass enclosure to
house the 1938 fire truck. He anticipated the costs to acquire the property could be recovered by the
income produced from parking fees over the next 5 years and the site developed in the future.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 13
Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented in his neighborhood there were three homes valued the same amount
as this property. The purchase represented only 3.5% of the annual budget. He cited his experience with
purchasing six homes and selling five, commenting he never lost money on any of them even though
being in the military he may not have had the opportunity to sell at optimum times. His current residence,
purchased in 1970 was worth approximately 40 times the purchase price. He commented it was difficult
to lose money in real estate, unlike the City's fiber optics program or the Alliance. He concluded the
Skipper's site was a wonderful piece of property and its purchase was a once in a lifetime opportunity.
George Murray, Edmonds, recalled Mayor Haakenson's comments at the April 22 Earth Day event
acknowledging the importance of the environmental movement to sustain today's world and how 40 years
ago there was no Earth Day. He compared this to his vision for the future, a wonderful shoreline where
future generations could enjoy the special, natural gift of the waterfront. The acquisition of the Skipper's
property is a first step in accomplishing this, a step he viewed as fairly risk free. He relayed the
audience's concerns last week were the City paying too much for the property, lack of money to pay for
the purchase, no vision for the property, and potential contamination. He viewed the purchase as an
investment and something that could be sold in the future if necessary. With regard to lack of money to
purchase the site, he commented there were ways to finance its purchase without using General Funds. He
envisioned the acquisition of the Skipper's site could be a starting point for developing a common vision
for Edmonds.
Graham Marmion, Edmonds, understood the desire to keep a Jack in the Box from locating on the site
due to aesthetics but agreed with Mr. Hall that this triangle in the middle of a traffic zone next to a
beachside park was a poor location for a park. If the property was expected to maintain or increase in
value, he proposed the City purchase the property and spend the next year formulating a plan for its use.
If an appropriate use was not identified, the property could be sold at either the same or increased value to
a purchaser of the City's choice who would work with the City on a use that was aesthetically and
economically appropriate. He concluded even if the subsequent purchaser was a Jack in the Box, a new
Jack in the Box would be an improvement over the current decrepit, boarded up building.
Michael Young, Edmonds, questioned the City's involvement in land speculation, pointing out much of
the current economic crisis was due to people buying things they did not need and could not afford. He
was shocked by the Council's intent to purchase property they could not afford or did not have a use for.
He pointed out the Skipper's site was bordered by eight lanes of traffic and railroad tracks. He compared
this "bargain" to Nigerian email scams. He expressed concern that the property purchase was an end run,
from an executive session to making an offer. By comparison, he recalled the numerous public hearing
held regarding the subject of leashing cats. He pointed out the Council's vision for the property ranged
from a park, a shingle museum, or visitor's center with funding from grants or a levy. He concluded the
purchase was a poorly thought out plan.
Carol Wood, Edmonds, considered herself a bottom line person and found the purchase of the Skipper's
property a bad idea. She urged the public to email each Councilmember their opinion regarding the
purchase. She recognized each Councilmember thought they were doing the right thing and acting in good
faith and encouraged them to consider how they would spend their own money, pointing out the money
they were spending on the Skipper's property was the taxpayers' money. There were serious budget
issues facing the City and limited amounts of money this year and into the future. She concluded to even
consider spending $1.1 million to purchase property for which there was no plan was not a good idea.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked those who spoke for their productive, insightful, articulate comments
on this emotional issue.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 14
Councilmember Wilson explained the Council received a counter offer so the Council's offer was no
longer on the table and further action would be necessary if the Council wanted to accept the counter
offer. He encouraged the public to email Councilmembers their opinion regarding the purchase. He
agreed this was an emotional issue, noting he received 114 responses to an email he sent out as well as
numerous unsolicited emails at his City email account. He recalled the presentation he made, a thought
exercise to think through a very emotional subject that culminated in an email last week from Mr. and
Mrs. Sacks that they did not support D. J. Wilson's 8 -story building on the Skipper's property and his
response that that was garbage. Mr. and Mrs. Sacks objected to his referring to their email as garbage;
Councilmember Wilson apologized for offending them and being unclear. A transcript of his remarks
revealed his statement as it is garbage when public officials send out misinformation and falsehoods
around this very emotional issue.
Councilmember Wilson referred to comments that imply that ownership of this property equals control,
explaining the City already controlled the property via zoning. Further, the City is limited in what they
can do with property. For example, if the City purchases property, the City is precluded by law from
making money on its resale. If the City purchases the site and resells it in year, it must be sold for the
same or lower amount.
Councilmember Wilson referred to an email by a Councilmember that stated on Tuesday night D. J.
Wilson reported to the Council on his meeting with property owners. Councilmember Wilson clarified the
property owners were the Department of Transportation and the Port of Edmonds; the meeting also
included Council President Bernheim, Councilmember Buckshnis, Mayor Haakenson and Community
Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton. The email continued that the Councilmember
did not support D. J. Wilson's taller building plan for our waterfront. Councilmember Wilson clarified he
had no plan for taller buildings on the waterfront; his presentation included 5 stories on the Harbor Square
property because that was what the Port has asked for and 38 feet on the WSDOT site because they stated
development was infeasible under the current 30 foot limit.
Councilmember Wilson referred to 3 emails he received stating he supports 8 -story buildings on the
Skipper's site and that the Council must work to defeat his plan. He does not have a plan for 8 -story
buildings and there were no documents or statement from him that support the claim that he wants 8 -story
buildings on the site. One member of the community responded to the Councilmember's email that
Councilmember Wilson did not support 8 -story buildings. A Councilmember stated that Councilmember
Wilson accepted a $3,000 contribution from the developer. Councilmember Wilson clarified he did accept
a $3,000 contribution from a developer in 2007, not the owner of the Skipper's property but the owner of
the Safeway property and it had no relevance to the Skipper's property. He offered to return the money if
his Council colleagues, particularly Councilmember Plunkett who has been providing misinformation,
would be willing to return the money they received from developers over the course of their Council
campaigns. He supported campaign finance limits including a recent Council action that limits
contributions to $500 per person. His lack of financial interest in this property should be abundantly clear.
Councilmember Wilson explained he provided the presentation a few weeks ago with an open mind and
because he had the community's best interest in mind, not because he wanted taller buildings. To
Councilmember Plunkett's comment regarding a parking structure with a park on top or Councilmember
Fraley- Monillas' comment regarding a visitor's center, he assured he would have an open mind when
those concepts were proposed. He was hopeful that further clarification of emails or comments regarding
these issues would be unnecessary.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented she did not like the spin that was being used on staff,
comments that considering the purchase of this property would require furloughing staff or reducing
salaries. She asked the public's opinion of the purchase if General Fund monies were not used and it was
funded in other ways such as selling one of the City's fire stations that are used by Fire District 1 or if the
property paid for itself.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 15
With regard to the Council's goals for the property, Councilmember Fraley - Monillas emphasized if the
Council purchased the property, it was up to Edmonds citizens to establish a vision for the property. She
envisioned citizens would be upset if the Council decided on the use of the property without involving the
public. She disputed that there was any plan to develop the $1.1 million site as a park, clarifying there was
interest in incorporating green spaces on the site. She concluded the voters elected her because she was
willing to consider issues that benefitted them, not special interests. She assured the Council was not
planning to cut staff if the property was purchased.
To Councilmember Fraley - Monillas' comment that no one was planning to develop the site as a park,
Councilmember Peterson pointed out a number of audience members and Councilmembers have
suggested it be developed as a park. He displayed a Google Earth image of the site and surrounding area,
questioning who would want a park with 8 lanes of traffic on one side, 6 lanes of traffic on another side,
soon to be double railroad tracks another side and a parking lot on the fourth side. Although he stated last
week that this may be a good site to purchase in good economic times, after further consideration, he
concluded it was a horrible purchase for the City as a park. Air quality and traffic noise also make its use
as a park questionable. He displayed another Google Earth image illustrating the City -owned park on the
waterfront on the other side of the railroad tracks. He questioned why the Council would want to purchase
a site in a horrible location when it was surrounded by parks in beautiful locations. To those that envision
the site could be used for parking, he questioned the use of a million dollar property for parking when the
adjacent site is developed with parking.
To those that have said the site could be purchased and later sold, Councilmember Peterson explained
once park acquisition monies were used to purchase the property, it was a park forever. He concluded the
Council could find better properties to purchase such as in neighborhoods that are underserved, the
downtown area had numerous parks including acres of waterfront and an off -leash dog park, If Skipper's
was viewed as a stepping stone to purchasing more of the near waterfront area and ultimately the old
Safeway property, he urged the Council to make that clear.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who sent emails to the Council. She received 247 emails
and has been stopped on the street by many people. She noted a City park could be a waterfall that tied
the downtown area to the waterfront. She agreed with Councilmember Fraley - Monillas' concern with
comments regarding the use of General Fund when the intent was not to use General Fund but to use
other funding sources. She referred to an email regarding the City's purchase of property in front of Old
Mill Town that had not been landscaped by the Garden Club. She assured the Garden Club was working
on a landscaping plan for that site.
With regard to the email about Old Mill Town. Mayor Haakenson explained the Garden Club was tasked
with developing a plan to landscape that area and City funds would be used for materials. The Garden
Club has developed a plan but has encountered difficulties because there is no power or water available to
the site. Those issues are being resolved and there will be a beautifully landscaped park there thanks to
the Floretum Garden Club.
Councilmember Wilson clarified his comment was that the site could be used for a fountain not for a
waterfall.
7. PRESENTATION BY PARKS DEPARTMENT ON FUNDING AND GRANT OPTIONS FOR
SKIPPER'S PROPERTY.
Mayor Haakenson explained this report would provide background information in response to a request
by Council President Bernheim to illustrate Parks & Recreation's grant seeking efforts and how they may
relate to the .37 acre Skipper's site.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 16
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained the predominant state grant funding program for
parks is the Washington Wildlife & Recreation Program (WWRP) administered by the Recreation &
Conservation Office (RCO). This program provides funding for a broad range of land protection and
outdoor recreation opportunities including park acquisition and development.
Grant Type, Process, and Timing
Mr. McIntosh explained the WWRP provides funding in 11 categories with funding support split between
a Habitat Conservation Account (i.e. Critical Habitat, Urban Wildlife, etc.), an Outdoor Recreation
Account (i.e. Local. Parks, Trails, etc.), a Riparian Protection Account, and a Farmlands Preservation.
Account. This property would only be eligible for the Local Parks category. In 2010 the grant cap is
$1,000,000 for acquisition projects in the Local Parks category, $500,000 for development projects, or
$1,000,000 for a combination of both. Generally, a 50% match is required. If funding remains at the same
level as adopted in the 2009 Legislative session, approximately $7 -8 million may be available in the
Local Parks category.
In the previous grant cycle (2008) 76 local parks projects were submitted requesting $31 million. Of
those, 21 projects were funded for a total of $7.85 million. Applications for the Local Parks category are
accepted early in May in even years only; oral project presentations are in August, projects are ranked in
October, the Recreation & Conservation Funding Board considers and approves the list and forwards it to
the Governor's Office for inclusion in the capital budget request to the State Legislature. The Legislature
determines the funding level in the spring, the Legislature approves a list of projects, the Recreation &
Conservation Funding Board makes the final funding award and the funds are available late summer,
more than a full year after the application.
If an acquisition grant is received for real property, it is locked in for that park use in perpetuity. It cannot
be "bought out ", resold, or the park use changed in any way. The only way a conversion could occur
would be to swap property with equal value in a nearby location.
Waiver of Retroactivity
Based on written justification by an applicant regarding the critical need to purchase property before
funding approval, the RCO Director may issue a "Waiver of Retroactivity ". Such a waiver allows the
acquisition project to remain eligible for reimbursement through two consecutive grant cycles. The waiver
application and all required attachments are required as soon as possible and must be submitted before
closing escrow and taking title to a property. There is no guarantee of funding if a waiver is granted; the
project competes with all other projects for funding. He displayed the Waiver of Retroactivity Checklist.
Once the request for Waiver of Retroactivity is submitted, the turnaround is approximately 7 -10 days.
Will the Project Score High Enough?
The Local Parks category is for "outdoor recreation" and there must be a specific outdoor recreation park
need and use identified. A landscaped area would not qualify. Community centers, concessionaire
buildings, environmental learning centers, gyms, and covered pools or rinks do not qualify for funding.
Walkways and paths as part of a bigger park project would be included.
Evaluation Criteria
Projects are evaluated on 10 criteria, the first two are weighted the highest:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 17
I . Public Need - considers existing facilities in service area. Areas with fewer outdoor recreation sites
score higher.
2. Project scope - does the scope meet deficient recreational opportunities within the service area?
3. Project Design - n/a for acquisition
4. Immediacy of Threat - is there a threat to the public availability of the resources the site possesses?
5. Site Suitability - is it well- suited for its intended recreational use?
6. Expansion /Renovation - will this expand an existing recreation area?
7. Project support - the extent the public has been informed and /or support for the project is apparent.
8. Cost Efficiencies - demonstrates efficiencies through use of volunteers, donations, cooperative
agreements
9. GMA Preference - not evaluated, City qualifies
10. Population Proximity - not evaluated, set score
A challenge for this site would be to convince the Evaluation Team that this property is contiguous with
the existing waterfront parks and an expansion or continuation of them (criteria #6) given its separation
due to the railroad tracks and Railroad Avenue /Main Street. A specific intended recreational use needs to
be identified.
Cost of Development, Maintenance & Operations
Until a specific use for the property has been identified it is difficult to estimate development costs or M
& O costs. These depend on intensity of use and what amenities are to be present at the site.
Other Funding Sources
One possible source for development funds could be Federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) Grants.
This is the grant program currently funding the Highway 99 Lighting /International District project.
Attachment #3 in the Council packet outlines eligible projects that can be funded by this program.
Recent Grants for Edmonds Parks Projects (Attachment 4)
Purpose
Source
Grant Amount
Hickman Park
RCO Acquisition (using Waiver of Retroactivity)
$500,000 (max at that time)
$1,200,000(these funds no
Snohomish Count from county mitigation funds
longer available)
Shell Valley
RCO Urban Wildlife (using waiver)
$100,000
Interurban Trail
RCO Trail Grant
577,000
PSRC Transportation CMAQ Grants (2 )
750,000
4th Avenue
Park Service - Preserve America
50,000
Cultural Corridor
Dayton Street
Local organizations
25,000
Plaza
Total
$3,202,000
Efforts to secure Federal appropriations in 2009 (Interurban Trail) and State Capital Budget - Local
Community Project grants in 2006, 2007, 2009 (Former Woodway High School have been unsuccessful.
Current REET Status
REST (Real Estate Excise Tax) funds are collected each time there is a real estate transaction in
Edmonds. The total amount collected is one -half of one percent of the purchase price. These are the funds
used by the department when grant applications require matching grants. This collection is split into two
equal parts:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 18
• The first 1/4 (.25 %) collected goes into Fund 126 used for Specialized Capital Projects & Debt
Service.
• The second 1/4 (.25 %) goes into Fund 125 used for park capital improvements.
Current REST collection projections for 2010 are approximately $531,000 for each fund and are collected
monthly. Current (April 21) balances in each fund are:
• Fund 126 $547,557
• Fund 125 $768,828
Mr. McIntosh noted Fund 126 is encumbered by annual debt service of approximately $700,000 for debt
on City Hall, Marina Beach, ECA, the Library roof, and the Anderson Center Seismic retrofit. This fund
is currently not generating enough revenue to meet the existing debt. In Fund 125, 2010 projects
including the Interurban Trail, 75th/76th St Walkway /Haines Wharf Park, Dayton St. Plaza, Yost Pool
repairs, and miscellaneous small projects account for most of these funds this year.
Councilmember Plunkett commented some have suggested that the funds received from Fire District I
could be a down payment and the remainder financed via Fund 126, funds designated for park purchases.
He referred to an email from Mr. McIntosh that indicated the balance in the 126 fund less the debt would
leave approximately $252,000 in the 126 Fund. Mr. McIntosh clarified the balance in the fund plus the
amount expected to collect and expected debt service would leave approximately $250,000.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the debt did not eliminate the 125 Fund; it encumbered it but left
approximately $252,000.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the baseline for the 2010 REST projections. Mr. McIntosh
advised it was revised quarterly based on the prior quarter's receipts. Councilmember Plunkett asked
whether the projection anticipated a robust spring real estate market. Mr. McIntosh advised REET is
collected monthly and there was hope that the real estate market would improve. The projections are
based on the first three months of 2010.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Waiver of Retroactivity was due by May 3. She asked whether
the City could submit a waiver request as a placeholder even though the Council has not finalized its
decision. Mr. McIntosh answered there was no deadline for submitting the Waiver of Retroactivity as
long as the letter granting the Waiver of Retroactivity was received before the City closed on the property.
Applications for RCO grants are due this year by May 3.
Councilmember Buckshnis noted the 2010 Monthly Revenue Forecast projected $750,000 for 2010. .
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines advised $750,000 was the amount shown in the budget. Based on
January -March collections of REST, the year -end projections is approximately $531,000 as illustrated in
the General Fund Update for March.
Mr. McIntosh explained if there was $250,000 remaining in Fund 126 at the end of 2010 and next year's
REST collection is $531,000, payment of the $700,000 debt service in 2010 will leave only
approximately $80,000 in the fund. Until REST collections exceed $700,000, the balance in the fund will
be used to cover the difference between REST collections and the $700,000 debt service. Councilmember
Wilson observed if REET collections did not increase, the City would have a debt service liability that
REET would not cover and likely would need to be covered by the General Fund. If the Council used
REET funds for this purchase, they were banking on the real estate market improving.
Councilmember Wilson explained if 22% of the purchase was funded via REET, was 100% of the
property required to be a park. Mr. McIntosh answered a portion of the site could be designated as a park.
For example if a portion of the site was a parking lot, an RCO grant could not be used for that portion
unless it was designated solely for park parking.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 19
Councilmember Wilson asked how the use of the property was encumbered by the use of REST funds. If
the Council used $600,000 from the Fire District 1 revenue, $250,000 from REST, and the remaining
$250,000 from some other source /debt, would the entire site be required to be a park? Mr. McIntosh
answered yes. [Note: this was later clarified that use of Fund 126 monies did not require the site be
designated as a park.]
Councilmember Wilson recalled it was difficult to sell property that was zoned as a park. He asked
whether there were limits on future resale if REET funds were used to purchase the site. Mr. McIntosh
responded if RCO grant funds were used, the property could not be resold. The use of REET funds would
allow the property to be resold.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the projected balance in Fund 125 at the end of 2010. Mr. McIntosh
answered it would depend on the cost of the projects. Councilmember Plunkett estimated there may be
approximately $200,000 remaining in that fund at year -end.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether the requirement for the site to be 100% park would
prohibit a structure. Mr. McIntosh answered no, citing Hickman Park as an example which has a
backstop, restroom, and picnic shelter. Those structures are within the guidelines of a neighborhood park.
The RCO grant cannot be used to fund indoor recreation facilities. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked
if the site could have enclosed buildings such as a tourism center. Mr. McIntosh answered that would
require apportioning the site. However, once the portion of the site was funded via an RCO grant, it must
be a park in perpetuity. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas observed a waterfall or fountain could be
considered a park. Mr. McIntosh responded he would need to verify whether an RCO grant could be used
to fund amenities such as a fountain, gateway, sculpture, etc.
Councilmember Peterson inquired about the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) debt service. Mr.
McIntosh advised it was paid from the 126 Fund in the amount of $73,000 /year. That represents
repayment of the City's commitment of $2 million toward the ECA project. Councilmember Peterson
explained the Council used Councilmatic bonds for the ECA that are funded by Snohomish County sales
tax revenues which, similar to REET, are dwindling. He asked whether Fund 126 would be the revenue
source if those Councilmatic bonds had to be paid by the City. Mr. McIntosh explained the Council had
discretion regarding the use of REET funds above $700,000. With REET collections below $700,000
there was not enough money in Fund 126 for that.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Skipper's site would need to be in the Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP) if the Council wanted it to be a park. Mr. McIntosh answered yes; the only thing in the Parks Plan
was general reference to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center and the need for public amenities and
public space. The site was not specifically identified as a park; therefore, the CFP would need to be
changed. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether including the Skipper's site in the CFP required review
and recommendation by the Planning Board. Mayor Haakenson recalled Councilmember Plunkett
emailed planning staff and their response was a public hearing at the Planning Board would be required.
Councilmember Plunkett concluded according to City Attorney Scott Snyder the site could not be a park
until it was included in the CFP.
Councilmember Wilson explained if the Council used REET funds for the purchase, it must be used for a
park. To those who say they have not yet made up their mind about its use but wanted to use REET funds
for the purchase, it would be used as a park. He urged the citizens to be aware that those statements had
consequences.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the portion of the site for which REET funds were used would be required
to be a park; the Fire District 1 money did not have any restrictions on its use. Councilmember Wilson
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 20
asked whether the entire site must be a park if 22% of the total purchase price was funded with REST.
Mr. McIntosh answered no. He clarified whatever portion of a property was funded with RCO grants
must be designated and remain a park in perpetuity. Councilmember Wilson asked what portion of the
site needed to be a park if 22% of the funds for the purchase were from BEET. Mr. McIntosh answered all
or none, unless there were RCO grant funds involved, the use could be whatever the Council wanted.
Councilmember Wilson observed the use of Fund 126 was restricted. Mr. McIntosh responded there was
a list of allowed uses for Fund 126 monies including Public Works projects, parks projects, etc., virtually
all public uses.
8. SKIPPERS PROPERTY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT — DUE DILIGENCE
ACTIVITIES
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained in response to the City
Council's Purchase and Sale Agreement, he developed the report dated April 22, 2010 included in the
Council packet. The report references the purchase and sale agreement terms, specifically the three
feasibility periods for a total of 90 days. The counter offer proposed by the bank would reduce this to 60
days. The report references four potential due diligence activities staff recommends to assist the City
Council make decisions related to the Purchase and Sale Agreement:
Conduct an appraisal: The City Council would need to authorize the Mayor to execute an appraisal
on the Council's behalf. The packet includes a Professional Services agreement for Lamb Hanson
Lamb in an amount of $4,000, $500 of which is a rush fee to perform the appraisal within three
weeks. Because the Council has contemplated the use of state or federal grant monies, the appraisal
must be performed to state and federal standards. Because there is a potential to use grant funds for
the property, a peer review will also need to be performed on the Lamb Hanson Lamb appraisal, a
cost of approximately $1,500 for a total cost of $5,500 for the appraisal.
2. Conduct a Level 1 /Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment: The Level 1 analysis would identify
potential contaminants on a site. Actual sampling of the soil, ground water or building materials is
typically not conducted during a Phase 1 study. If identifiers /indicators indicate contaminants exist, a
Level 2 analysis would need to be performed. The packet includes a Professional Services Agreement
with HWA to conduct a Level 1 assessment in the amount of $2,200.
Conduct a Feasibility Study: As part of the due diligence associated with the purchase of this
property, the City Council has indicated it may want to, 1) conduct a public process to evaluate
potential uses for the subject property, and 2) better understand the costs associated with the
development of the property for public or public /private uses. Due to the short purchase and sale
agreement feasibility timeframe, staff recommends the tasks be performed with the assistance of a
consultant. The consultant would assist with determining possible uses and conduct a public process,
compare the cost and benefits of City development for, 1) purely public use, 2) a mixed public - public
use such as the City and Port, or 3) a primary city use with rental of a portion of the site to a private
entity for cash flow purposes until the space is needed for a public use; or for a public /private
development. Using these scenarios, the City would seek a real estate /land use advisor to evaluate the
potential redevelopment of the Skipper's property. He listed goals that could be included in an RFQ:
a. Evaluate types and scale of uses likely to be economically viable on the property. The range
to be considered could include a variety of public or civic uses (community center, City
offices /tourism center, open space, etc.) along with housing, office, retail /entertainment, and
institutional uses.
b. Recommend whether the City should purchase the property or direct or incentivize
redevelopment of the property by other parties willing to partner to achieve the City's desired
development solution
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 21
c. Define potential tools, incentives, and policies that the City might employ to encourage
desirable development at the site, which could in turn, be applicable to other properties, while
diminishing the number of incompatible uses
Timing of a feasibility process /study is under the control of the City Council and can either be
conducted now, in whole or in part, or deferred to a later date. His contact with five urban
planning /real estate firms estimated the cost of preparing a feasibility study at $25,000 to $50,000.
Typically, a higher cost study usually allows consultants to conduct a more thorough analysis and
further refine assumptions, thus improving the degree of confidence in the information.
4. Special counsel letter of engagement: City Council Scott Snyder has indicated the level of bond
counsel involvement will be dictated by the feasibility study the Council chooses to undertake. If the
Council plans to keep the property as a park use, fewer resources from bond counsel will be needed.
If the Council wants to consider all possible uses for the site, more involvement by bond counsel may
be required.
5. City Council Direction: The Mayor, City staff and the City Attorney request City Council direction
on a public process. At one end of the spectrum, if a majority of the City Council wants the site used
for a park, the process will be relatively straight forward given the City's current Comprehensive Plan
provisions. If there is a desire to keep the door open on some form of partnership to assist in funding
development or create a mix of use on the site, the feasibility and bond counsel processes will be
more complex.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council could use the site for a parking lot and if there was a
desire to change the use in the future, a feasibility study could be conducted at that time. Mr. Clifton
agreed it could but if the Council had any inkling that they wanted to consider all possible uses within the
60 or 90 day timeframe, he recommended conducting as comprehensive a feasible study as possible.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas was interested in the appraisal and identifying any environmental issues
before she was willing to commit. She asked whether the environment assessment could be done prior to
the feasibility study or should they be conducted at the same time. Mr. Clifton answered the appraisal and
Level l environmental assessment could be conducted prior to the feasibility study. Mr. McIntosh and
Mr. Snyder negotiated a 3 -week turnaround for the appraisal. If there is only a 60 day feasibility period,
that leaves only 39 days to conduct a feasibility process that includes public meetings.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether identification of a contaminant in the Phase 1 assessment forced
the City into a Level 2 assessment. Mr. Clifton answered it would be the Council's choice whether to
proceed with a Level 2 analysis. For example, the Level 1 environmental assessment for the Edmonds
Center for the Arts found indications that contaminants existed; a Level 2 analysis followed that identified
the cost to mitigate the environmental contaminants and the cost was deducted from the purchase price.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the Level 2 assessment would identify the cost of remediation.
Mr. Clifton answered the assessment could identify the contaminants and the cost of cleanup.
Councilmember Peterson asked the cost of a Level 2 assessment. Mr. Clifton answered it would depend
on the information identified in the Level 1 assessment.
9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, explained the Port has been conducting
planning /visioning for Harbor Square but has not made any specific proposal /request to the City for
redevelopment of Harbor Square. The Port does not have a completed Master Plan or preferred
alternative, they have a bulk analysis that describes various plausible redevelopment scenarios and
measures their economic feasibility. He announced a redevelopment workshop at Harbor Square on May
5 in Harbor Square Building 2, 6:00 — 9:00 p.m. The purpose of the workshop is to continue the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 22
conversation, share ideas about the concepts that have been developed, discuss economic feasibility and
obtain public comment. In addition to the workshop, he invited the public to submit comments to him, the
Commission or the Port's website.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported he attended the April 21 Snohomish County Council meeting where
they reversed their decision regarding guns in county parks. The County also plans to redistrict precincts
for 2012. Next, he announced a public hearing in Lynnwood regarding construction of 25 single family
homes on Halls Lake due to concerns with flooding of the lake.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented the idea of selling a fire station to Fire District 1 may be feasible
but would increase the price of the contract because Fire District 1 would be required to cover the
station's operating expenses. The estimated $700,000 in EMS transport fees would also be reduced as
they were tied to the stations. He pointed out the funds obtained from the sale of equipment to Fire
District 1 was General Fund money; the Council's action on November 1, 2009 specified funds from the
sale of depreciating assets would be placed in the General Fund. Next, he suggested the Council follow
the process used to purchase the space in front of Old Mill Town; in that instance an appraisal was
obtained, the City negotiated a lower price and sufficient REST funds were available for the purchase. He
concluded his comments noting if the Council was listening to the public, they would halt the purchase as
the overwhelming number of citizens here this week and last week did not support purchasing the
Skipper's property. A recent website poll indicated 15% favored buying the property, 83% were opposed
and 2% were undecided.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented citizens' extreme reaction was due to their being misled that the
source of funds for purchasing the Skipper's property was the General Fund. He relayed that the Waiver
of Retroactivity was the most important thing to do if there was any possibility of using grant money for
the purchase. With regard to a feasibility study, he suggested using the site for parking with a sign it was
the site of a future park. Even if grant funds were used to purchase the property, its use could be changed
in the future by swapping properties. With regard to secret meetings, he explained Councilmember
Plunkett's meeting with Imagine Edmonds was not a secret meeting because the public was invited.
Conversely, he was refused admission to Councilmember Wilson's meeting with WSDOT, the Port and
Councilmembers.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Hertrich's comments regarding secret meetings. He referred to
information available on MyEdmondsNews.com including an article today that Police Chief Compaan
was concerned about Police Department funding if the Council purchased the Skipper's property. He
urged the Council to retain the Police Department's wages at the current rate at a minimum regardless of
whether they purchased the Skipper's property. He commented most Edmonds employees had the best
job in town and enjoyed a 2% pay raise this year along with additional days off. By contrast his social
security did not have a cost of living increase. He complimented Council President Bernheim for the tone
of tonight's meeting, finding it better than the uncivil meeting last week when Mayor Haakenson's
comments stirred up the audience.
Harold Huston, Edmonds, reiterated the suggestion he made at the Council retreat that the Council
consider changing from a strong Mayor form of government to a strong City Manager. He relayed that
most people supported that idea. With a strong City Manager form of government, he /she would oversee
the department heads, serve at the pleasure of the City Council and answer directly to the City Council.
The Mayor would be Councilmember elected as an honorary position. He relayed that topic would be on
next week's agenda. He concluded his comments by stating the employees of Edmonds were second to
none, top quality people and if the Council wanted to retain them, they must be paid a fare wage and
provide fair benefits.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 23
Michael Young, Edmonds, questioned the ethics of the suggestion to purchase the Skipper's property
and put up a sign identifying it as a future park. He also questioned the logic of the comment that City
employees received a raise when they took mandatory furlough days. He questioned the Council's
continued pursuit of the Skipper's property when the most intelligent minds in the audience have spoken
out against it. He questioned discussing union negotiations, staff furlough days, etc. prior to the Skipper's
purchase and discussing due diligence after an offer had been made. He urged the Council to keep City
staff out of discussions regarding funding of the Skipper's purchase.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE METING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
10. FIBER OPTIC REPORT
Councilmember Plunkett explained Homeland Security provided fiber that runs down Main Street. The
Citizens Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) has been discussing fiber optics. It had been
anticipated the fiber optics would begin netting money in the area of public, education and government
and some of them began to hookup. When costs began to increase, some entities disconnected. The
income from those entities was anticipated to pay for the cost of doing business.
Councilmember Plunkett displayed a list of the CTAC's recommendations with regard to fiber:
• Internal City Usage — consider opportunities to create the infrastructure to hookup to fiber
• Business Rollout — money must be expended to connect businesses. Finance Director Lorenzo
Hines was asked to review whether this was still a viable option,
• Residential Rollout — this is a $25 million investment that was not even under consideration
Mr. Hines displayed a drawing of the fiber line that starts at the ferry, up to Hwy. 99 and into Seattle. He
was tasked with reviewing the feasibility of the fiber optic program. His first action was to meet with the
contract project manager and the City's CIO to discuss the program. He felt the need for further analysis
or a Business Plan as this is an enterprise activity that is intended to create profit. Since the inception of
this effort, the City has expended approximately $437,000, the bulk of those funds in attorney fees on
legal activities on which the City prevailed. He explained although there were several target markets, the
feasibility of providing service to those markets has not been analyzed.
He displayed a comparison of capacity of broadband, dial up, wireless DSL, and Ethernet pipes compared
to the gigantic fiber pipe. He acknowledged the potential was there, how to maximize it must be
determined. He is working with a subcommittee of the Economic Development Committee to bring a plan
to the Council in late May /early June.
Councilmember Wilson commented fiber was a vital piece of Edmonds moving toward economic
development. If Edmonds wanted to position itself as an environmentally conscious community, the most
environmentally conscious businesses the City can recruit are high tech businesses. He suggested amazing
things could happen if the City were to require redevelopment or new construction within 3 blocks of the
fiber line connect because Edmonds would then be one of a few cities in the county with this capacity to
upload content. This could encourage a wide range of online content providers to move to downtown
Edmonds whose employees would then utilize downtown businesses. He suggested going to the voters at
an appropriate time, not this year, with a specific request for a tax increase to make an investment in
infrastructure.
IL 2009 BUDGET REVIEW
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 24
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ON BUDGET CUTS
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
13. COUNCIL REVIEW OF LEVY OPTIONS
Councilmember Buckshnis reported Mayor Haakenson and she met last Friday to review several issues
including the levy. Although Councilmember Wilson has expressed support for pulling last year's levy
off the shelf, she preferred to get the fiscal year end, the fourth quarter 2009 and first quarter 2010 and the
General Fund review and form a small committee to review the information and develop levy scenarios
that may include Yost Pool, the Senior Center, etc. The Finance Committee plans to meet on May 3 at
1:00 p.m. in the City Hall Fourtner Room to review the two scenarios that were presented last year and
present two options which may include the "D.J. option" from last year.
Councilmember Wilson clarified he did not have a levy option on the table. He the levy option considered
last year was $3.75 million; last week he noted a lesser amount would be appropriate. He suggested
having further Council review of levy options at Friday's special Council meeting.
14. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Council planned to take any action on an appraisal or Level 1
environmental assessment or if they were delaying it until the meeting on Friday. Councilmember
Plunkett responded he needed until Friday to review the materials. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was
interested in at least having the appraisal conducted. Councilmember Orvis suggested the Council move
forward with the appraisal if they accepted the bank's counter offer. Council President Bernheim
suggested the Council defer action on the due diligence contracts until Friday's Council meeting.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Peterson thanked Mayor Haakenson for attending the Edmonds Center for the Arts'
fundraising event, Center Stage. The event was a great success and despite the economic times, the
ECA's operations budget looks great, the result of a great staff and great performances. He encouraged
the public to view the schedule of events at EC4arts.org.
Councilmember Buckshnis announced the Town Hall meeting Friday, April 30 at Colonial Pantry Family
Restaurant in Firdale from 6:00 — 8:00 p.m. The topic is how citizens envision Edmonds.
Councilmember Wilson provided clarification to the following statements made by Councilmember
Fraley - Monillas in a Guest View column of the April 23 Edmonds Beacon:
• Councilmember Wilson was the Council President during the start of our recognized fiscal crisis.
Councilmember Wilson explained he was selected as the Council President January 2009; the
fiscal crisis began in September 2008.
• His agenda included hiring a pool consultant for $65,000 to recommend a location for an aquatic
center we couldn't afford to build while simultaneously cutting funding to seniors and Yost Pool.
Councilmember Wilson explained the Council approved that consultant in April 2008. He
supported the Mayor proposed cuts to Yost Pool in April 2009 and proposed a levy in 2009 to
increase Senior Center funding by approximately $100,000.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 25
• Mr. Wilson voted on every budget containing cuts insufficient to keep our budget afloat.
Councilmember Wilson explained he had only voted on one budget since he had been on the
Council, the first balanced budget the Council had passed in years. The City was kept afloat
because of $1 million in cuts in that budget.
• Councilmember Fraley- Monillas states she is opposed to using Fire District I funds for day -to-
day operations and expenses. Councilmember Wilson expressed his appreciation for that position
and recalled he was the lead voice on that in the Fire District 1 negotiations.
• In the past two years Mr. Wilson voted for a $25,000 raise for our mayor while voting to furlough
our staff. Councilmember Wilson explained the Council approved the increase in May 2008; after
the financial crisis, as Council President he drafted and led a repeal of that increase in 2009. He
pointed out there was never a vote on the issue of staff furloughs.
• He voted to permit our directors and managers $4,000 per month in cell phones... and continuing
staff travel, conferences, professional dues and meals. Councilmember Wilson clarified the City
has a staff of 200, $4,000 is an appropriate amount for cell phones. It is also appropriate to have a
well- trained staff.
• Mr. Wilson continues to represent negative votes, keeping our city from moving into real
economic development and financial stability. Councilmember Wilson pointed out he drafted the
ordinance creating an Economic Development Commission and championed a levy last year due
to the importance of financial stability.
Councilmember Wilson summarized none of the above equated to the $1.1 million purchase price of the
Skipper's property. Although he was open to considering uses for the site such as a visitor's center or
summer market, he pointed out the City already has both.
Councilmember Wilson explained any email received at the email address a Councilmember advertised
for City correspondence was public record. Recently Councilmember Plunkett received a public records
request from his opponent in last year's election for email from the email address he advertises for City
correspondence from January 1, 2009 through April 20, 2010. Coincidentally a public records request was
submitted by Roger Hertrich, an active Council watchdog, for all his (Councilmember Wilson's) email
during the same period. Mr. Hertrich asked for any and all electronic communications to and from the
email addresses, listing the email that Councilmember Wilson advertises for City correspondence, and
listing his professional email address which he also uses occasionally for personal use.
Councilmember Wilson explained the difference between the two requests is Councilmember Plunkett
was asked for email from the account he advertises for City business; he was asked for email from the
account he uses for City business, all of which are public record, as well as emails from the account he
uses for professional and personal use. His City email account is for City business and all those emails are
public record and are contained on the City's server. He has a separate campaign email account that he
does not advertise for City business. He has a separate professional account he uses for his consulting
firm and his personal use. He does not advertise those accounts for City business and maintains a clear
line between City, campaign and professional emails. When he emails someone from his personal account
to a City address, those automatically become public record, collected via a server. Occasionally people
email him to his personal account about City business. When that happens it may /may not be a public
document. When he occasionally emails people about City business from his personal account, it
may /may not be a public document. For this public record request, he reviewed his emails back to January
1, 2009 and submitted approximately 65 emails that may /may not be public records to the City. However,
Mr. Hertrich is not satisfied with that, he wants any and all communications from his personal and
professional account regardless of whether they have anything to do with public business. Mr. Hertrich
wants copies of photographs he sends of his children to their grandparents, tax information he sends to his
accountant, correspondence with his clients that contains strategic and privileged information and is using
the Public Records Act to access that information.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 26
Councilmember Wilson noted if his clients knew that any correspondence he had with them was
disclosable, he soon would have no clients. If Mr. Hertrich is successful in accessing all his information,
his ability to earn a living would be eliminated. City Attorney Scott Snyder has informed him there is not
clear direction in the case law about his personal email and because of this he has retained an attorney.
The cost of the attorney will either be at his personal expense or the City's expense. He expressed his
strong belief that Mr. Hertrich had no right to access his personal and professional information, that it was
his private, personal right to have a private, personal life and that Mr. Hertrich should not have the ability
to access it. He believed the intent of the law was on his side and he was willing to stand up for his rights
in a court of law. He did not believe Mr. Hertrich had the right to intimidate public officials through such
records requests.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas explained the article she wrote in the Edmonds Beacon was in response
to Councilmember Wilson's article saying the five Councilmembers were fiscally irresponsible in looking
at the purchase of the Skipper's property. The intent of her article was to point out that she has on the
Council 3 �/z months, Councilmember Wilson has been on the Council for a couple years and the City is
still in a fiscal crisis. She believed the City was in this position due to people not doing what they should
have been doing.
Mayor Haakenson added that public records requests were overwhelming City staff. In addition to these
requests, the City receives countless other public records requests. He planned to ask for a full -time
position in the City Clerk's Office in the 2011 -2012 budget just to handle public records requests. This
particular public records request has forced the City to hire a temporary full -time person for the next two
months. These requests are not unlike other public records requests the City has received this year; there
are certain perpetrators that submit public records requests weekly. He acknowledged it was an issue
across the country; sometimes the information gathered is a good thing, sometimes the intent of those
asking for the information is not good. Public records requests are a fact of life in government. In the end
taxpayers pay because additional staff has to be hired to gather the information.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:41 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 27